Tuesday, June 16, 2015

A report on the June 9 School Board meeting

In this post, I’m going to tell you about the actual business conducted at last week’s monthly School Board meeting, along with some personal observations. In my next post, I’ll report on what happened in the 2–1/2 hours of public comments.

June 9 School Board meeting - 5:30 PM

The Agenda for this month’s meeting contained 96 items. It’s not as bad as it sounds, though, because 78 items comprised the Consent Agenda, i.e. items presented for Board approval without discussion unless a Board member requests it.

None of the consent items was pulled for discussion, not even Item 9, approval of a new kindergarten through 8th grade charter school. See the 643-page application here and related Naples Daily News article here. Florida law gives local school districts little power to reject charter applications as long as specified requirements are met, hence (presumably) the lack of Board discussion.

Next came a proposed change to the Agenda by Board member Erika Donalds (defeated on a 3–2 vote) and comments from about 30 public speakers. I encourage you to experience some of them yourself through the Video-on-Demand recording on the District website, beginning about 30 minutes in.

At around 8:15 PM, the Board meeting “really” began

First, two items of unfinished business (adoption of School Board Bylaw 0100 - Definitions and Policy 1010 - Board-Superintendent Relationship) were approved unanimously on their Second Reading, having been discussed at great length at previous meetings.

Policy 1010 reflects a significant change in how suggestions for new policies or revisions to existing policies can be made. The matter arose when Donalds and Lichter wanted several matters considered in the past, and felt they were being unfairly prevented from doing so. As revised:
"Such suggestions will be placed on the next agenda and addressed at a public meeting. Because such suggestions are linked to potential future District policy development and/or revision, the public will be given the opportunity to speak on whether any such suggestion merits further study. If the Board believes, as a matter of consensus, any such suggestion merits further study, the Superintendent shall have staff research the matter. The Superintendent will report staff’s findings to the Board and recommend to the Board whether a new or amended policy should be developed and brought forward as a first reading at the next biannual policy review work session."
There were then two information-only presentations. First, the District’s legislative lobbyist gave a Preliminary 2015 Legislative Review and Status, “preliminary” because final school funding and other outcomes would not be known until the state’s special Legislative Session ends toward the end of the month.

Then, a First Reading of the 2015–16 Student Progression Plan was presented, along with a document showing changes from the prior year. The Plan sets forth the rules, administrative procedures and promotion criteria by which students advance from grade to grade. It specifically addresses how parents are to be kept informed about their child’s progress. Parents, students, other interested citizens and school personnel are the intended readers of this document. There was no Board discussion; presumably the Plan will have a Second Reading at the next Board meeting.

The Board’s self-evaluation

Next, the Board’s self-evaluation was presented. As I wrote last week, I’m not surprised that it took a terrible turn this year. Everyone agrees that the message sent is concerning.

What to do about it is another story. In “School Board, a negative direction” (behind paywall), the Naples Daily News Editorial Board recommends reinstating appointed citizen advisory boards on curriculum and financial matters to address the lack of trust evidenced by the Board’s self-evaluation. Several community members I’ve spoken with agree.

But I am skeptical that individuals appointed by our polarized Board members would be any more willing to compromise than the Board members themselves. And I have no doubt that meeting the requests of the newly-empowered committee members would only add to the already significant time District staff currently spends meeting Board and community member requests. We don’t need more bureaucracy.

Instead, I urge the Board to do what they are supposed to do: work professionally and with positive intent, compromise, and get things done in the best interests of the children. I support Board member Julie Sprague’s request for another professionally-facilitated session focused on the Board’s Governance Model and another Board self-evaluation in November, when this group will have served together a full year. Watch a clip of her comments here.

The Superintendent’s 2014–15 evaluation and 2015–16 goals

To me, the most substantive Board discussion at Tuesday’s meeting concerned the Superintendent’s 2014–15 evaluation and proposed 2015–16 goals. You can watch it here, starting about five minutes into the video.

As I explained last week, the evaluation consists of two equally-weighted parts:
Donalds objected to the form of the evaluation, which had been approved by the predecessor Board a year ago.

First, she was troubled by what she called a “disconnect” between the Strategic Plan’s Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and the performance objectives being evaluated. In a memo she sent fellow Board members the day before the Board meeting, she wrote:
… Our evaluation must be based on how effective the actions of our Chief Executive were in achieving our shared goals, not merely whether she has taken actions or implemented strategies without ties to defined, measureable outcomes. ….
This is difficult to understand without comparing the Strategic Plan and Evaluation documents. Here’s an example using the first of the Strategic Plan’s six goals: “Expand Early Childhood Education to Enhance School Readiness and Early Learning.” That goal has three KPIs:
  1. Increase by four percent the number of CCPS VPK students who meet the criteria for Kindergarten Readiness as defined by the Florida Office of Early Learning.
  2. Strengthen and monitor Family Literacy programs at one hundred percent of elementary schools and develop and implement three Parent Academies one of which will focus on early childhood education.
  3. Provide professional learning opportunities by offering six sessions, two sessions annually, for community Pre-K providers.
The Plan lists a number of Strategies for each KPI for fiscal year 2015. As an example, the Strategies for the “increase by four percent” KPI are:
  • Conduct a minimum of two annual meetings with site Pre-K principals to review assessment data and to implement improvement strategies ….
  • Analyze the impact of professional learning efforts from previous year by ….
  • Promote communication by planning and delivering quarterly early childhood updates ….
By comparison and to Donalds’ point, the two performance objectives for this goal in the Superintendent’s evaluation instrument are:
  • Expand professional learning opportunities for community based agencies, based on identified needs.
  • Share best practices gathered from elementary reading coaches/principals to create a Family Literacy Collaboration website.
Board Chair Curatolo strongly disagreed with Donalds that the Strategic Plan’s KPIs should be the metrics evaluated. In her view, “No one goal can determine if student learning measures have been met. It’s collective.” There was a lengthy debate, well-argued by both sides.

Curatolo and Donalds have very different educational backgrounds, professional training, and career experiences. Curatolo is in her third four-year term as school board member, has a Certification in School District Administration, and has received Master Board Certification through the Florida School Board Association. Donalds’ education and professional experience is in accountancy and global management accounting, and this is the first year of her first term as a board member.

My own education and career are similar to Donalds’. I understand her point of view, although I don’t necessarily agree that a school district superintendent’s evaluation should be modeled on that of a corporate CEO. I am less familiar with the model Curatolo was supporting, and her experience and training in school board administration add value to the discussion. Hearing during the meeting how much more structured and demanding the Collier Superintendent’s evaluation is compared to other Districts in Florida was also interesting and relevant.

Regarding the second part of the evaluation, professional standards, Donalds objected to the subjectivity involved in evaluating them, and to the equal weight given to the quantitative (performance) and qualitative (professional standards) parts of the evaluation.

Curatolo agreed with Donalds that the overall assessment should more heavily weight the objective performance metrics than the subjective professional standards. Sprague disagreed. Pointing out that the professional standards came directly from the Connect Now Community Statement, she said she would not support lowering the weight of that section.

The discussion continued until ultimately Chair Curatolo called for a motion to approve the 2014–15 Evaluation and 2015–16 goals, which passed 3–2. While board members agreed on the evaluation, Donalds and Lichter voted no because they were unable to make changes to the goals.

In my view, one of the Board’s most important responsibilities is setting the Superintendent’s goals and evaluating her performance. To that end, having an effective evaluation tool is critical. I hope there will be more discussion and ultimately consensus reached on a revised set of evaluation metrics for the 2016–17 year.


My mission - what drives me to write this blog - is to encourage and facilitate community involvement in civic affairs and, ultimately, informed, fact-based voting. I hope this post did that, even if I didn’t tell you who said what during the 2–1/2 hours of public comments. That will be the subject of my next post, where I will also give my thoughts about how I might cover that part of Board meetings going forward.

Please share this post with your friends. You and they can subscribe to Sparker’s Soapbox by email at www.sparkers-soapbox.blogspot.com, “like” me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/sparkers.soapbox or follow me on Twitter @SparkersSoapbox.

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

School Board and Superintendent evaluations on agenda for June 9 meeting

At Tuesday’s School Board meeting, the Board’s annual self-evaluation and evaluation of the Superintendent will be presented and discussed.

I’m not surprised that the Board’s self-evaluation took a terrible turn this year, reflecting senior Board members’ frustrations with the behavior of the two new Board members both at and outside of Board meetings, and new Board members' frustrations with their new peers.

Unexpectedly, however, the Board’s evaluation of the Superintendent showed significant improvement over last year’s. This was the case even though when there was lack of unanimity, the new Board members' ratings were always the lowest.

In this post, I’ll share how the evaluation process works, with links to relevant materials so you can dig into them yourself. I’ll also share my observations of both evaluations and my concerns about their implications. As always, I urge you to let our elected Board members hear from you on these matters, either by email or in person, before they vote on the evaluations at Tuesday’s meeting.

The Board’s Self-Evaluation

The Board has been using the same evaluation instrument for the past six years. Areas covered include Board/Superintendent relationship, governance, policy-making, Board members’ conduct during and after Board meetings, and community/stakeholder relationship. Each Board member is asked to rate the Board on 34 indicators using a five-point scale (Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree and Strongly Disagree).

For the 2014–15 year, all 34 indicators moved in a negative direction compared to the prior year, meaning the Board views itself as less effective this year than last on every metric. Even more telling, all five board members rated the Board’s performance favorably in just four of the 34 indicators. It rated its performance unfavorably in 30 of the 34 indicators.

The worst ratings numerically were on these indicators:

#7 - The School Board and the Superintendent work together to create a climate of good faith and goodwill through team work and clear communication.

Mrs. Curatolo commented that “While the special meeting helped move us in this direction, we [are far] from a highly functioning board. Political agendas, lack of trust, and clearly pushing agendas which are not in the best interest of all students block us from high-level functioning….”

#11 - The School Board plans and conducts meetings in a businesslike manner, following accepted parliamentary procedures.

Mr. Terry commented, that “You never know what direction the meeting will take. We can take hours discussing procedural issues that had already been decided at a previous meeting. Example, when the public can speak.”

#14 - The School Board and the Superintendent work well together in a spirit of mutual trust and confidence.

Mr. Terry commented that “The lack of trust by a few Board members in the Superintendent and the rest of the Board is a problem. This causes a large amount of extra work for the Superintendent and her staff.”

And by far the worst rating (2.0 Disagree):

#17 - “Once a decision is made, all School Board members work together to support and implement the decision.”

Mr. Terry commented that while the District has no opt out of testing policy, “one Board member informed people how to opt out of testing.”

This is a TERRIBLE result. And the last year’s self-evaluation wasn’t much better. Comparing the 2013–14 to the 2012–13 indicators, only three of the 34 indicators moved in a positive direction, 17 were unchanged and 14 got worse.

Our school district nearly lost its accreditation in 2007 due to Board behavior and how it operated as a governing board. According to the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce at the time, in an article titled “School Accreditation: What It Means for Collier County":

To be blunt, graduation from a school system that loses accreditation means the students’ high school diplomas are – in a word – worthless. And if those kinds of penalties aren’t enough, history has shown an entire community can be thrown into chaos by the loss of its schools’ accreditation. Students jam adjoining counties’ schools, entire families relocate to other parts of the country, property values plummet, federal and state financial support dries up." 

The accreditation team at the time recommended that the District do a self-evaluation of its performance as a governing body, develop an in-house effectiveness training program with the specific objective of improving its ability to work as a governing body, and complete a comprehensive external review of its policies. It did so, and worked very hard over the next two years to get the “warned” status cleared.

And now look where we are.

Elections have consequences - even ones with very low voter turnout. We community members should be very concerned, both about the dysfunction reflected by this year’s evaluation, and by the negative trend.

We need to let those whose behavior we aren’t happy with know that we expect better.

The Superintendent’s Evaluation 

The Superintendent’s employment contract requires an annual evaluation based on goals agreed upon by the Board and Superintendent at the beginning of each school year.

The Superintendent’s evaluation is in two parts:

Each of the Superintendent’s performance objectives and professional standards is rated by each Board member on a four-point scale. The ratings of the five Board members are averaged, and then the combined rating on each part is weighted 50% so that the Superintendent’s overall rating is the average of the ratings of the two parts. An overall rating of 2.4 or above is Satisfactory; 2.3 or below is Unsatisfactory.

For the 2014–15 year, the Superintendent’s rating is 3.69, a significant improvement over the 2013–14 year of 3.24, which had been adversely affected by the ratings of former Board member Pat Carroll. For the 2012–13 year, the Superintendent’s rating was 3.78.

In the current year evaluation, all five Board members said the Superintendent completely met 31 of her 38 performance objectives, and completely or mostly met four. Two were linked to statewide tests for which results were not available.

Ratings on the 20 professional standards were more disparate, with the new Board members responsible for all the “needs improvement” and “not acceptable ratings.” Specifically, on “Demonstrates tact and diplomacy in working with individuals and groups,” and “Responds appropriately when faced with unforeseen events,” Lichter’s rating was the lowest possible: “not acceptable." On the latter, Donalds’ rating was "needs improvement," though Donalds agreed with the other three Board members in giving an excellent rating to "Demonstrates tact and diplomacy."

It is the Board’s responsibility to set measurable performance objectives for the Superintendent, and I’m pleased with the near-unanimity of the Board’s ratings on these measures.

However I’m concerned about the divergent ratings on the professional standards metrics, and disappointed that specific examples of those situations where Ms. Lichter and Ms. Donalds said the Superintendent’s performance “needs improvement” or is “not acceptable” were not provided with the evaluation posted online. Hopefully they were provided to the Superintendent in writing.

Tuesday’s Board Meeting

The business portion of the Board meeting begins at 5:30 pm this Tuesday, June 9. View the agenda here.

There are three opportunities for public comments, all at the beginning of the meeting before staff presentations or Board discussions:

  1. To address any item on the Consent Agenda (Agenda Items 7 - 84);
  2. To address anything not of the agenda, under General Public Comments (Agenda Item 86); and
  3. To address a specific agenda item, e.g. Board Self-Evaluation (Item 91) or Superintendent Evaluation (Item 92)

If you wish to speak, you must register before the meeting begins, indicating which agenda item you wish to address or if you have a general comment. You may do so online five hours before each meeting, or in person at the meeting.

If you are unable to attend the meeting but want to give comments to the Board and/or Superintendent, you can email them:

Kathleen Curatolo - curatoka@collierschools.com
Erika Donaolds - donale@collierschools.com
Kelly Lichter - lichteke@collierschools.com
Julie Sprague - spraguju@collierschools.com
Roy Terry - terryro@collierschools.com
Superintendent Kamela Patton - Patton@collierschools.com

Please share this post with your friends. You and they can subscribe to Sparker’s Soapbox by email at www.sparkers-soapbox.blogspot.com, “like” me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/sparkers.soapbox or follow me on Twitter @SparkersSoapbox.

Thursday, May 28, 2015

CCPS: responsive to Collier parents, despite what Parents ROCK says

Last night around 10 PM, Parents ROCK sent out an email with the subject “CCPS suggests pornographic reading - Parent WARNING!

Click here to read the email, which begins:

On May 12th, school district administration presented the school board with the Keep Learning Alive Summer 2015 Learning and Resource Guide. This guide included reading lists for all grades in CCPS. The MIDDLE SCHOOL reading list linked to goodreads.com, and contained a book called ‘Beautiful Bastard’ by Christina Lauren. This book is, without a doubt, pornography."

This morning, Parents ROCK President David Bolduc issued a press release announcing a press conference today at 1 PM at the Collier County Public School (CCPS) Administration Building. It said in part:

Here are examples from a few books recommended on the [CCPS] summer reading list for as early as 6th grade!

“Beautiful Bastard” - Well, it is way too steamy for us to write, but it involves his fingers running up her thigh and into her underwear and describes a few things he does to her while there, and you will find the ‘F’ word on several pages too. Visit Parents ROCK on Facebook for a link to the highly inappropriate content and language.

“The Truth about Alice”. On page 1 it states, “Alice Franklin slept with two guys in the very same night in a bed at my house. She slept with one and then, like five minutes later, she slept with the other. And everybody knows about it…one of those guys… (Who yours truly messed around with more than once)…died in a car accident. And it is all Alice’s fault.”

Several parents are horrified their children are being exposed to this pornographic content and demanded an explanation as to why the CCPS would endorse such inappropriate material for Middle School students.

How outrageous! Our School District recommending books like these to our children??

The Parents ROCK email says, “This guide included reading lists for all grades in CCPS,” and its press release says, “Here are examples from a few books recommended on the summer reading list for as early as 6th grade!”

But that’s not accurate. The District’s reading guide only includes book recommendations for grades Pre-K to 5. I downloaded the 22-page Summer 2015 Learning and Resource Guide, and checked. Neither book appears.

Actually, I was impressed. The Guide is a wonderful document and I encourage you to review it. Its stated purpose is to help parents to:

AVOID THE SUMMER SLIDE! It is very important for students to continue to practice their academic skills even though school has closed. This “Keep Learning Alive” Learning and Resource Guide gives parents a variety of ideas to keep children practicing English Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies while not in school.

Rather than recommending specific books to middle and high school parents, it offers “some helpful links to help you and your child find rich, engaging books to read this summer.” Among ten sources listed, including Best Fiction for Young Adults from the American Library Association and 2015 Summer Reading Programs from the University of Central Florida and the University of South Florida, are two webpages from Goodreads: high school book lists and middle school book lists.

Goodreads is a website hosting crowd-sourced sets of book recommendations.

“Beautiful Bastard” appears on a Goodreads middle school book list titled “Best boy hates girl then loves her books.” It is tagged as “Adult Fiction > Erotica” and “Erotic Romance.” I agree with the concerned parent. This is definitely not appropriate summer reading from teenagers.

“The Truth About Alice” is tagged as “Young Adult > Teen,” “Young Adult > High School,” and “Young Adult > Coming of Age.”

Here’s the District’s explanation of what happened:

Last year we provided parents, our partners, with more than just a summer reading list. Keep Learning Alive was developed to include reading, writing, math, science, social studies, and career and technical summer activities. In this year’s version, we expanded our Keep Learning Alive Summer Learning and Resource Guide. In an effort to provide a variety and abundance of reading choices for parents and students, we provided links within our summer reading resource to several national reading websites.

A concern was brought to our attention Wednesday, May 27th about a potentially inappropriate book that was located via one of the national links. We immediately reviewed the matter and took corrective action. The district in no way encourages the reading of these inappropriate materials. These web sites were reviewed by district staff in April prior to selection and release of the reading resource. Our website had linked to a page that listed traditional middle school reading lists. At some point during the last few weeks, the website changed the available books and reading lists on this page. We have contacted the site and shared the concern about inappropriate material being available in these sections. [emphasis added]

We are now only offering parents a single Florida Department of Education approved reading resource. In this digital world, we cannot control when and how websites change their content. However, we can control how we use this content going forward and we will do that. The posted reading choice materials are provided in an effort to help our students continue their reading throughout the summer. We regret any difficulty that the link may have caused. Education is a partnership between the school district, parents, students, and community members. This is a time when this partnership worked to the benefit of our students.

Parents ROCK stated in their email that within two hours of receiving the concerned parent’s email, they took action. Two hours! That’s what I call being responsive!

But that’s not good enough for Parents ROCK. Their agenda is to find fault and criticize the Superintendent and senior School Board members, make teachers and school administrators afraid of making a mistake, and stir up fear among parents that somehow their children are not safe in our schools.

Parents ROCK chose to use this situation to rev up its base and gain media attention with an inflammatory email and press release, instead of presenting it as the District did: as an example of the successful working partnership between the District, parents, students and community members.

Parents ROCK’s agenda is a political one. It has nothing to do with what’s best for kids.

The fact that there was an inappropriate book on one of ten web resources offered to parents (NOT kids) is not what should be getting media attention.

What SHOULD be getting attention is the District’s effort to help parents help their children “avoid the summer slide” with this terrific 22-page Summer 2015 Learning & Resource Guide.

Please share this post with your friends. You and they can subscribe to Sparker’s Soapbox by email at www.sparkers-soapbox.blogspot.com, “like” me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/sparkers.soapbox or follow me on Twitter @SparkersSoapbox.

Saturday, May 16, 2015

What to expect at the next School Board meeting

The next School Board meeting is a Workshop on Tuesday, May 19. Unlike a regular Board meeting, no votes may be taken at a workshop; its purpose is Board discussion of materials presented by District staff.

You can view the agenda on the District's website here.

The meeting will begin with public comments, which, unlike at regular Board meetings, must relate to one of the items on the Workshop agenda. Then the Board will hear staff presentations on three topics:

All three topics should draw interesting public comments. The Assessment presentation, which is in response to Board member Erika Donalds’ request several weeks ago for raw scores so she could do her own analysis of student performance, could draw speakers both in support of and opposed to district-wide end-of-course exams. See my May 8 post “End-of-Course Testing Next Likely Controversy.”

What: School Board Workshop
When: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 - 5:30 P
Where: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Administrative Center, 5775 Osceola Trail, Naples 34109
Watch live: here or Cable 99

Public Comment Policy and Speaker Registration Form: here

And save the date! Plan to attend the June 9 School Board meeting, at which the Board’s self-evaluation and its evaluation of Superintendent Patton will be on the agenda.

Please share this post with your friends. You and they can subscribe to Sparker’s Soapbox by email at www.sparkers-soapbox.blogspot.com, “like” me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/sparkers.soapbox or follow me on Twitter @SparkersSoapbox.

Friday, May 15, 2015

An astute and concerned reader

My May 11 post, “An informed electorate is our best defence,” elicited some great reader responses, most of which were conveyed to me privately. In this post, I want to share with you one that was made anonymously through the Sparker’s Soapbox website. The writer appears to be someone who is following the School Board closely and has given the situation a great deal of thought.

(S)he began with this comment that illustrates the chilling effect a few litigious community members and public-records-requesters are having on the public’s freedom of speech:
I’ll take advantage of this opportunity to make an anonymous post, because the reformers’ threats of lawsuits and other tactics make it difficult to speak freely. Thank you for offering a safe space to speak.
(S)he then offered this assessment of the strategy of the two junior School Board members and their supporters, and where she fears it will lead:
A strategy revealed: first undermine confidence, then replace with something new (but not necessarily better)

Collier County education reformers are an odd mix of libertarians (who support home-rule and gun rights, but oppose censorship), conservative parents (who want to take control of instructional materials to protect children from immoral works), ultra-conservatives (“real” conservatives who have “freed themselves” from the Republican Party), and parent fans of the new board members.

This appears to be their strategy:
  1. Replace the superintendent with someone who will let the board control operations.
  2. Replace two of the three senior board members with reformers in 2016. Presumably, that’s why the parent-attorneys and their elected officials are targeting Mrs. Curatolo for lawsuits. [See here and here.] Which reformer will try to replace her - one of the parent-attorneys who orchestrated the lawsuits, or a homeschooling mother who wants to enforce high standards of purity in the classroom? [Don’t miss this YouTube video starring that mother, titled “The Brainwashing and Indoctrination of Our Children.”]
  3. Opt out of testing and dump federal standards, so no one will know how well Florida students are doing.
  4. Censor all instructional materials. However, do not use the “C” word, please. Reformers prefer "textbook review.” Remove all references to what reformers call “victims rights,” such as Japanese internment camps or Chinese coolie laborers. Finally, delete references to communism, socialism, climate change, overpopulation, because if no one uses these words, these things disappear.

These reformers have not articulated a detailed plan for the public education. Based on campaign promises, we can expect more public funds to be diverted to charter schools, which will adopt the Hillsdale College Charter School model, like Mason Classical Academy (where [School Board member] Lichter and [School Board member] Donalds’ husband are on the board). This model emphasizes fact memorization over critical thinking, ancient classics over modern classics. If that doesn’t sound bad, consider that Collier County’s advanced studies courses (Advanced Placement, Cambridge AICE, dual enrollment) all require students to think critically.

Low standards and double standards do not make for an attractive reform package. Reformers use public funding to advance their ideological agenda through charter schools, then whine that the administration is “stealing” from them. They hail themselves as civil rights heroes for breaking laws they happen not to like, but sue the district – or threaten to sue it - when they perceive the staff or other board members haven’t followed state laws to the letter. Reformers insist on detailed budget analyses for every purchase the district proposes, but neglect to apply the same due diligence to their proposals.

They accuse the district of using funds inefficiently, yet waste district resources probing for information to use against anyone who opposes them. They want to strengthen the whistleblower policy, hire an internal auditor and another attorney, presumably to gather more ammunition. They request district test scores that would require many staff-days to provide. These resources should be used to improve our schools.

The reformers’ constituents model the behavior of their elected officials. The parent-attorney who sued the district to change the civility policy so the board chair could be attacked complained because other public commenters took advantage of the new policy to criticize him, instead of focusing on the issue.

These antics are difficult to watch, but important to recognize, because they put the district at risk of another state accreditation agency warning.

The writer is referring to the fact the Collier County School District almost lost its accreditation in 2007 because it had a dysfunctional School Board.

Why is losing accreditation a concern? According to the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce at the time, in an article titled “School Accreditation: What It Means for Collier County:”

To be blunt, graduation from a school system that loses accreditation means the students’ high school diplomas are – in a word – worthless. And if those kinds of penalties aren’t enough, history has shown an entire community can be thrown into chaos by the loss of its schools’ accreditation. Students jam adjoining counties’ schools, entire families relocate to other parts of the country, property values plummet, federal and state financial support dries up."

My anonymous reader concluded her/his comments with a call to action. (S)he wrote:

The superintendent and senior school board members are doing their best to protect school personnel and resources, but they need our help. Tune into the school board meetings and write an email, or a letter to the editor, or give a public comment to support our public school staff. We are one school board seat away from taking experienced educators out of decision-making roles, and replacing them with members of this coalition. [emphasis added]

Fellow citizens, if you want a system that prepares young people to memorize facts and follow orders, and if you want a school system that’s run by taxpayers, elect more reformers. If you want a school system that teaches young people to think for themselves, prepares them for the best colleges and universities, and allows schools to be run by professional educators, re-elect the senior board members, or find new ones just like them.

I share the concerns so well-expressed by this anonymous writer. And I echo her/his call to action.

We must each do all we can to raise awareness of what’s going on right here in our community. There is so much at stake.

Please help by staying informed yourself, and urging your friends to subscribe to Sparker’s Soapbox.

Please share this post with your friends. You and they can subscribe to Sparker’s Soapbox by email at www.sparkers-soapbox.blogspot.com, “like” me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/sparkers.soapbox or follow me on Twitter @SparkersSoapbox.

Monday, May 11, 2015

An informed electorate is our best defence

I write this blog to share what I learn about issues and events that are influenced or decided by our elected officials. Ultimately, I write to encourage informed voting.

Lately I've focused my writing on the Collier County School Board, because the more I learn about what’s happening there, the more concerned I become.

I try to write objectively and then, at the end of each post, share my views and ask readers to take a specific action.

Today I’m taking a different tack. Rather than write about something I read recently, I'm asking you to read it yourself. It's a message Florida Citizens Alliance recently emailed to its followers. Click here. What’s your reaction? How would you describe it to a friend?

I’d also like you to look at Parents ROCK’s Facebook page, which has over 580 followers. Click here.

In my opinion, these two right-wing, Tea Party-related groups sensationalize local educational issues. They raise important questions, but it would be dangerous to blindly accept or trust what they selectively present as fact. There’s always more to the story than what they claim.

They are consistently critical of our District's Superintendent and senior School Board members. They oppose state standards for what children should learn. They want a bigger role for parents in deciding curriculum and reviewing textbooks and other assigned reading materials. They disagree with state law about testing, so they want to ignore it.

Here's an excerpt from an item posted on May 7 on the Facebook page of the husband of one of the new School Board members:

Stay tuned for more information on the two fresh candidates who will challenge the status quo and stem the tide of liberalism that has flooded our public schools.  Until then, let Mrs. Lichter and Mrs. Donalds know you support them by showing up at school board meetings, speaking out, writing letters to the editor, and telling your friends and colleagues that "enough is enough." We will not stand idly by as our public schools are devastated by power hungry educrats who care more about public perception than educating our children. 

There is no doubt that they want to take control of our School Board in next year’s elections.

Most people you and I know are unaware of these groups and their agendas. If they have children in school, or are working one or two jobs to make ends meet, they may be too busy with day-to-day life to focus on School Board matters. Or for other reasons, they may not realize that the School Board is relevant to their lives. It’s just not something they pay attention to.

But they should. The School Board sets policy and hires and oversees the Superintendent who is responsible for the day-to-day operation of our schools.

Our schools do more than teach reading, writing and arithmetic. They teach our children to read and think critically, ask questions, and separate truth from propaganda. They expose them to different cultures, experiences and beliefs. They encourage them to be tolerant, compassionate and understanding. And - hopefully - they teach them to respect the rule of law and protect the rights of all citizens. Simply put, our schools educate our children so when they grow up, they can participate fully as informed citizens in our democratic society.

There are vastly different views in our community, our state and our nation about what makes for good public education. Here in Collier County, seemingly well-funded Florida Citizens Alliance and Parents ROCK espouse views and advocate for actions I do not agree with.

Please help me raise awareness of these groups and their priorities by sharing this post. These groups will be supporting candidates for election to the School Board in the next election. An informed electorate is our best defence.

Please share this post with your friends. You and they can subscribe to Sparker’s Soapbox by email at www.sparkers-soapbox.blogspot.com, “like” me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/sparkers.soapbox or follow me on Twitter @SparkersSoapbox.

Friday, May 8, 2015

End-of-Course Testing Next Likely Controversy

End-of-course exams are not on the agenda for Tuesday’s School Board meeting, but somehow I suspect they’ll be a topic of discussion, thanks to Parents ROCK.

Under Florida law, students’ grades on statewide standardized end-of-course tests (EOCs) are significant components of two important areas of educational assessment and accountability:

  1. a student’s final course grade, and
  2. a teacher’s or school-based administrator’s evaluation.

But a new law signed by Governor Scott last month changed the rules of the game.

Among many changes, the 65-page law Education Accountability bill (HB 7069) reduced the number of mandatory statewide EOCs to just six: Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, Biology I, U.S. History, and Civics.

It also eliminated the requirement that districts create districtwide EOCs for all courses, but retained the requirement that all standards taught in all courses must be assessed.

And whatever alternative measures of assessment are chosen, the use of EOCs for the purposes referred to above was also retained, including the requirement that the six remaining statewide EOCs count for 30 percent of a student’s final course grade.

Districts across Florida are approaching these changes in different ways.

In Collier County, the Superintendent decided to continue using districtwide EOCs because they enable the district to:

  • consistently assess student mastery of the standards for the course, regardless of the school or classroom in which the student takes the course, and
  • provide a consistently-assessed student growth metric for use in teacher/administrator evaluations.

On the other hand, according to the Naples Daily News (behind firewall):

In Miami-Dade, Superintendent Alberto Carvalho said the school district would dump over 300 district-created exams, and only keep a handful of exams. In Lee, Superintendent Nancy Graham gave teachers freedom to choose their own year-end tests, encouraging them to choose tests “that will most effectively assess student learning and inform classroom instruction.”

I support Superintendent Patton’s decision. While getting rid of districtwide tests may be popular with the local-control crowd, how can the district assess student learning and teacher effectiveness across the district without a uniform assessment tool? When asked how teacher evaluations would be calculated, Lee Superintendent Graham said teachers who choose their own tests, as opposed to the district’s exam, will be evaluated individually. Whatever that means!

Parents ROCK, the community group formed by School Board member Erika Donalds, had this to say in an April 30 Facebook post:

Collier County School Superintendent Kamela Patton says that the district will not drop any end of course assessments, even though the state now allows school districts to eliminate those EOC’s that were created by the district, tests that many counties have already eliminated. Is this a good decision? Is this a decision for the superintendent or should it be up to the school board?

My bet is that Board members Donalds and Kelly Lichter think it was not only the wrong decision, but that it was not the Superintendent’s decision to make.

According to a News-Press article shared by Parents ROCK in another Facebook post: the Lee County School Board took the Superintendent’s decision to eliminate districtwide EOCs even further, voting to NOT use the still-required statewide EOCs in determining student grades. In other words, they directed the Superintendent to violate state law. This act is reminiscent of the Lee Board’s vote last August to opt out of all state testing, a decision they subsequently reversed.

The Parents ROCK post asked, “Should Collier County do the same?”

My sympathies go out to Lee School Board attorney Keith Martin, “who advised that the motion appeared to be at odds with the state,” and Lee Superintendent Graham, who said, “I think we may be in the same conundrum as last August and the possible ramifications…. We are at risk as a district.”

No doubt Parents ROCK and its followers think the Lee County School Board has it right, and Superintendent Patton has it wrong.

Parents ROCK has invited its members to attend Tuesday’s School Board meeting. As of this writing, 19 have said they are going, including some of the usual frequent speakers, and one who posted:
A number of us will be meeting outside the admin building at 4:30pm to offer prayer for our board members, teachers/administrators and students. Come early and add your prayers to ours.

Based on these Parents ROCK Facebook posts, and what we’ve seen in the past, I expect these matters to be the subject of public speaker comments critical of Dr. Patton at the May 12 School Board meeting, and that Ms. Donalds and Ms. Lichter will want to follow the lead of the Lee County Board.

I am troubled by all of this, and I hope you are, too.

I am appalled by the Lee County School Board’s directive that the Superintendent break the law. I do not condone anyone taking the law into one’s own hands - especially not elected officials, who should serve as role models. What kind of example does this set for our young people?

And I am disturbed by the plan for their supporters to gather outside the District Administration Building to pray. Praying does not belong there. It is nothing more than a stunt to gain media attention.

If you share my concern, come to Tuesday’s School Board meeting and urge School Board members to support our Superintendent and not to take any action that violates the law and puts our District at risk.

Public comments start at 5:30PM and you MUST sign up beforehand. You can sign up on line 5 hours prior to at http://collierschools.net/Page/1152, or in person at the meeting.

What: Collier County School Board Meeting
When: Tuesday, May 12; business meeting begins at 5:30PM
Where: District Administration Building (get directions)

Please share this post with your friends. You and they can subscribe to Sparker’s Soapbox by email at www.sparkers-soapbox.blogspot.com, “like” me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/sparkers.soapbox and follow me on Twitter @SparkersSoapbox.