JeffCo school board decision draws questions re:transparency

There is a 2nd Boots on the Boulevard scheduled for this Friday from 4-6pm along Wadsworth - after school hours. There are also some parents working on organizing one in Evergreen as well.

My apologies for not keeping up with updates on this subject. There are two reviews that I would like to share because they highlight that this is not just about AP History (though that is a big part of it, as outlined in the 2nd opinion piece below), merit pay, or the teachers union being unreasonable. This is a much bigger issue, as evidenced by the fact that hashtag #JeffcoSchoolBoardHistory has been trending nationally, and been written about in international articles now. The State Board is watching this situation closely, and there are some parents planning on attending their next meeting as well.

These sick-outs and walk-outs by students are the civil disobedience that our country was founded on to raise awareness of an issue. To condemn them as being selfish, or harming the kids, or that the kids are being "coerced" by their teachers is unfair and wrong. Parents and teachers have tried working with this board, attending monthly board meetings and speaking up, sending emails and letters - they were ignored. There is little recourse left except to make known far and wide what this board majority has done over the past 10 months.

There was an independent fact-finding group commissioned to study teacher compensation, supported by both the teachers and the board until the findings were released. Then the independent group's findings were summarily dismissed.

This board hired an attorney (and there is still no district attorney hired to replace the man who left even before Cindy Stevenson did) to represent themselves, and is costing taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars, yet we don't get to see invoices for that? Are you okay with your money being spent on an attorney whose bill you don't even get to review? And that the other members of the board don't get to review?

This board hired a superintendent at $280,000 - far above every other pay scale for any CO Superintendent (and $80,000 more than his predecessor was making), especially given his lack of experience and credentials. He was the only candidate presented as a finalist, there was no public vetting, and little input from the other board members permitted. If he was indeed the best candidate, then they should have been comfortable presenting him along with other candidates for review. A position at that high of a level almost requires that level of scrutiny and review.

A letter that was written by a Jeffco resident with permission to share:

Dear Colorado State Board of Education,

I am a five year Jefferson Country resident. As you are probably well aware, the recent conflict between our county school board majority and, well, most of the rest of the education community in our county has been thrust into the national spotlight with Julie Williams' controversial call for a separate curriculum review panel which would report directly to the school board. What you may not be aware of is the long history of disturbing actions by the current board majority (Ken Witt, John Newkirk, and Julie Williams) which has preceded the current round of anger and protests.

Broadly speaking, the concerns fall into two categories: official board actions and the behavior of the board majority.

Official board actions which have prompted concern include:
1. The hiring of a separate lawyer specifically to represent and advise the school board (unprecedented, as typically the district attorney also advises the board), without the approval of the two minority board members and at considerable expense;

2. Interference with the ability of long-standing county superintendent Cindy Stevenson to do her job, effectively forcing her resignation;

3. Hiring of new superintendent Daniel McMinimee at a cost of $280/k per year ($80k more than the previous superintendent's salary) in a process that included only a single finalist, despite his lack of terminal degree or previous experience as a superintendent, in what appeared to be a non-competitive process engineered by the board majority (no job description ever created; no additional candidates sought despite protests from board minority);

4. Granting of large loans to two charter schools despite significant concerns with the schools raised in the district's financial reports;

5. Hiring of a public relations firm on public dollars to specifically represent the school board;

6. Failure to appeal a court decision which cost the district some $900k in forfeited land and places other parcels of land at risk;

7. Failure to support/allow a free kindergarten program for at-risk children despite broad public support;

8. Passage of a highly controversial and extremely vague compensation plan for district teachers without public comment, union input, or significant review;

9. And most recently, proposing a curriculum review committee which would be selected by and report directly to the board which would target A.P. U.S. History (among other courses) for review, despite the district already having two curriculum review committees with broad public representation and an existing curriculum grievance process.

Equally as important, the board majority has a disturbing tendency toward secrecy and disrespect for the community, illustrated in the way it conducts business:
1. There has been evidence on multiple occasions that the board majority has separately, in private, discussed official board business without board minority members Lesley Dahlkemper and Jill Fellman present, in violation of Colorado's Sunshine law.

2. The board routinely schedules key action items for discussion and vote without allowing any opportunity for public comment.

3. Public comment and participation has been actively discouraged in a variety of ways, including last-minute changes to schedule, agenda, or location of board meetings; scheduling "special meetings" in which no public comment period is allowed; locking the doors in advance of board meetings and restricting entry; disallowing applause or signage at board meetings; and limiting public comment to many fewer individuals at each meeting than have signed up.

4. Certain members of the board majority routinely provide items for discussion at the meeting to the minority members as little as 1 hour prior to the meeting, effectively preventing the minority members from being able to conduct any review prior to the meeting.

5. The board president, Ken Witt, often alters the meeting agenda mid-meeting, in particular taking items marked for "discussion" to vote (an "action"), in violation of written board policy.

6. The board majority routinely ignores the advice and concerns of district officials when making decisions. The majority also ignores the clear preferences of the community as expressed in studies and surveys commissioned by the board.

7. The board has reneged on an earlier board agreement with the teachers' union to restore pay to pre-recession levels (since teachers voluntarily took a pay cut several years ago to keep the district financially solvent).

IMO, an excellent recap of what has transpired to date. Each of the topic titles is in all caps, as you can see it is lengthy.
Your Voice: What does it take to get Jeffco BOE to listen?
Posted by Michele Patterson on September 30, 2014

Just like our students, Jeffco PTA is concerned about the actions this board has taken and their lack of transparency and accountability to the public. The proposed curriculum committee is only the latest in a long list of actions that show a disregard for public concern. We have included some of this history at the conclusion of this piece.

PROPOSED COMMITTEE IS DANGEROUS & ABOUT MORE THAN AP HISTORY
The proposed curriculum committee, made up of citizens selected by the board majority, would initially be charged with a review of AP History and elementary sex education curriculum. After that, the committee would have the ability to review any curriculum, at any grade level, in any classroom across the district, and present to the school board anything they deem “objectionable.” The board majority, none of whom have experience in the field of education, could then choose to take action and remove anything they don’t like from being taught to our children.

THE DISTRICT ALREADY HAS A CURRICULUM COMMITTEE
What the board majority is not telling you about their proposed curriculum review committee and what has seen little coverage in all of this is that the district ALREADY has a curriculum review process and committee.

The committee – made of our own district leadership and educational experts, parents, teachers, and members of the community – participates in a thorough curriculum and text book review process.

So when board president, Ken Witt says this new committee will mean more parent involvement in the process he is seeking to intentionally mislead you about the process that is already in place.

Our superintendent, Dan McMinimee, stated at the last board meeting that he feels there is no need for this committee and he reiterated this in interviews with local news networks.

IS THE PUBLIC OVERREACTING?

WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, WHEN YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT, BLAME THE TEACHERS

• DOES WILLIAMS WANT RELIGION IN OUR HISTORY TEXTS?
• DID OUR CHILDREN BREAK THE LAW?
• NEWKIRK’S DISHONEST OP-ED
• WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET THEM TO LISTEN?
• DAHLKEMPER SAYS ONLY THREE LETTERS SO FAR SUPPORT THE CURRICULUM COMMITTEE
• WILL IT MATTER?

AS PROMISED, A LITTLE HISTORY:

• TRANSPARENCY ISSUES
• LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY TO PUBLIC ON BUDGET
• AVOIDANCE OF ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PUBLIC ON SUPERINTENDENT HIRE
• THERE IS MORE

History Being Made In Jefferson County Over AP History Course Review
by Lisa Kiepp
September 30, 2014

The battle is not over wages and teacher evaluations as some agencies would have you believe, although they are a part of it. The real battle, the one that has gotten students to walk out of the majority of high schools in the district, is over the proposed revision of the district's AP History courses.

This, of course, has gotten the framers of APUSH rather upset as well ( a committee made up of college professors), who state that APUSH was designed to be like a college course, with a focus on critical thinking skills. A look at the APUSH examples and guidelines show that the course material does indeed try to make a move away from the multiple choice test (also known by teachers and students alike as "multiple guess") and emphasizes a move toward the essay answer, in which students must read for comprehension, and make an analysis of statements and documents presented to them. By answering in depth, they show a fuller understanding of the material, and the ability to think critically and form their own opinions about history and current events.

Independent agencies have reviewed the course material and textbooks, and find that everything Williams claims is left out is indeed present in the coursework. (Emphasis mine)

By the end of last week, students in the majority of the district high schools had staged walk outs - a plan introduced, developed and implemented by students alone. (emphasis mine) In one instance, at Alameda High School, the students walked out after meeting with school superintendent, Dan McMinimee, dissatisfied with the vagueness of the answers he gave them regarding the review proposal and APUSH.

These walk outs hit the national news, and as a result the College Board stepped in, stating their support for the Jefferson County students, and releasing a statement that said:

"A Statement on Censorship of AP® U.S. History

26 September 2014

The College Board’s Advanced Placement Program® supports the actions taken by students in Jefferson County, Colorado to protest a school board member’s request to censor aspects of the AP U.S. History course.

If you'd like to read more about the topics above, please visit these links:

On APUSH and American History Association's endorsement of it- www.historians.org/Documents/AHA%20Letters/APUSH-Framework.pdf

An overview of the PUSH framework and what it entails - apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/co...ers_corner/3501.html

So the people who rate class material as worthy of "Advanced Placement" status, and in some cases ensure it qualifies for college credit, have stated that they will remove the AP designation should it get changed by a review committee. Does that not give you pause? Have we gotten to a point that we no longer trust academics, who have made the in-depth study of history their career, and afford them less credibility than a citizen-elected public person on a school board who has admitted that she hasn't even reviewed the material herself, and who wishes to establish a committee of fellow regular citizens, who may or may not have any experience creating or evaluating course material?