Sigs
A "sig" is the little block of text, usually four or fewer lines, most e-mail programs append to the end of a message. It's supposed to be, like a handwritten signature, a revealation of character and a marker of individuality.
Below is the "sig" Dr Lewis is appending to his messages:
"Sent by God and Committed to Children First,
Dr.Larry D. Lewis"
Reminds me of the other things sent by God:
... frogs, lice, hail, boils, locust, dark clouds and rivers of blood ...
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Beleaguered Lancaster School District takes Another Blow
Wednesday afternoon, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) released campus ratings, based on TAKS test data, for the entire state. The reports for Lancaster show the district remains, as in 2006, “Academically Acceptable”.
However, the district is only barely holding steady with that rating. For 2006, the nine traditional* schools of LISD had zero “Exemplary” campuses, two “Recognized”, five “Acceptable” and two “Unacceptable”. For 2007 the rankings are zero “Exemplary”, zero “Recognized”, seven “Acceptable” and two “Unacceptable”.
The two campus that dropped in the ratings from “Recognized” in 2006 to the lower “Acceptable” standard are elementary schools. Pleasant Run Elementary and the newly-constructed Houston Elementary are the schools that slipped to the lower “Recognized” status. Among other elementary schools, Rolling Hills ES remained “Unacceptable”, unchanged in 2007 from its 2006 rating.
In good news, the Lancaster Middle School has gained ground. The Middle School configuration reached an “Acceptable” rating in 2007, up from the older Lancaster Junior High’s scores of “Unacceptable” in 2006.
The High School has progressed in the wrong direction, slipping from “Acceptable” to “Academically Unacceptable” for 2007. The High School is the largest campus in the district. Over 2000 students are enrolled in the HS from the district’s total enrollment of some 6000. The district administration had hoped and planned that the new $73 million HS facility, and its luxurious athletic arenas, would boost both morale and test scores among the students. The current rating comes as a disappointment. This one rating leaves a third of the community’s students attending an “Unacceptable” facility.
The ratings are not expected to be addressed at the Thursday, 2 August, LISD budget workshop. However, the following Monday 6 August, the regularly scheduled meeting of the Lancaster Board of Trustees is sure to include some comment on the results.
This will be particularly apt in light of recent reports by the superintendent regarding his progress within the district since his arrival in 2003-04. For the rating year 2004, TEA awarded Lancaster High School, Junior High, and “Intermediate” schools an “Acceptable” ranking, and two Elementary Schools, the “Recognized” status. As rated by the TEA, five of the nine LISD campuses have lost ground under Dr Larry Lewis’s leadership.
* The district runs a tenth school, the JD HALL learning center, as an alternative program for students with disciplinary and/or other challenges. The TEA rating for this alternative education program is “Other”.
The J.D. HALL of the name is actually a proper name of a former district leader. The facility was re-christened in 2004. ** The Hall family recently donated memorabilia to establish a small museum or shrine to their patriarch, “ J.D. “ Lancaster residents are encouraged to visit and pay their respects.
Contrary to inference the facility name and function does NOT indicate the facility or “hall” in which the district warehouses it’s “Juvenile Delinquents”.
** Prior to January 2004 the alternate education center was known as “Rocky Crest”. Just who Rocky Crest was and what role he (or she) had in the district’s history is unclear to this author.
Wednesday afternoon, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) released campus ratings, based on TAKS test data, for the entire state. The reports for Lancaster show the district remains, as in 2006, “Academically Acceptable”.
However, the district is only barely holding steady with that rating. For 2006, the nine traditional* schools of LISD had zero “Exemplary” campuses, two “Recognized”, five “Acceptable” and two “Unacceptable”. For 2007 the rankings are zero “Exemplary”, zero “Recognized”, seven “Acceptable” and two “Unacceptable”.
The two campus that dropped in the ratings from “Recognized” in 2006 to the lower “Acceptable” standard are elementary schools. Pleasant Run Elementary and the newly-constructed Houston Elementary are the schools that slipped to the lower “Recognized” status. Among other elementary schools, Rolling Hills ES remained “Unacceptable”, unchanged in 2007 from its 2006 rating.
In good news, the Lancaster Middle School has gained ground. The Middle School configuration reached an “Acceptable” rating in 2007, up from the older Lancaster Junior High’s scores of “Unacceptable” in 2006.
The High School has progressed in the wrong direction, slipping from “Acceptable” to “Academically Unacceptable” for 2007. The High School is the largest campus in the district. Over 2000 students are enrolled in the HS from the district’s total enrollment of some 6000. The district administration had hoped and planned that the new $73 million HS facility, and its luxurious athletic arenas, would boost both morale and test scores among the students. The current rating comes as a disappointment. This one rating leaves a third of the community’s students attending an “Unacceptable” facility.
The ratings are not expected to be addressed at the Thursday, 2 August, LISD budget workshop. However, the following Monday 6 August, the regularly scheduled meeting of the Lancaster Board of Trustees is sure to include some comment on the results.
This will be particularly apt in light of recent reports by the superintendent regarding his progress within the district since his arrival in 2003-04. For the rating year 2004, TEA awarded Lancaster High School, Junior High, and “Intermediate” schools an “Acceptable” ranking, and two Elementary Schools, the “Recognized” status. As rated by the TEA, five of the nine LISD campuses have lost ground under Dr Larry Lewis’s leadership.
* The district runs a tenth school, the JD HALL learning center, as an alternative program for students with disciplinary and/or other challenges. The TEA rating for this alternative education program is “Other”.
The J.D. HALL of the name is actually a proper name of a former district leader. The facility was re-christened in 2004. ** The Hall family recently donated memorabilia to establish a small museum or shrine to their patriarch, “ J.D. “ Lancaster residents are encouraged to visit and pay their respects.
Contrary to inference the facility name and function does NOT indicate the facility or “hall” in which the district warehouses it’s “Juvenile Delinquents”.
** Prior to January 2004 the alternate education center was known as “Rocky Crest”. Just who Rocky Crest was and what role he (or she) had in the district’s history is unclear to this author.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Is it possible to get rid of a superintendent or school board trustee?
FAQs from the TASB, 2006, legislative session review
ETHICS
Recall and Financial Statements
Recall elections and requiring school board members to file financial disclosure statements nearly passed the legislature. The recall legislation, which targeted only school board trustees, did not pass because the author of the bill agreed to study the issue to allow input from everyone on the specifics of the legislation.
One proposed bill required only 10 percent of the voter turnout from the last election to recall a school board member. For example, if 300 votes are cast, then 30 signatures of registered voters is all that would be required to overturn an election result.
Currently, no law permits recall of any school board official in Texas.
Lawmakers tried to create a laundry list of detailed responsibilities that school board members must meet to prevent a recall election from being triggered (i.e. attendance at meetings).
Removal of school board members, however, is allowable under current law using the county or district attorney. It has only been done once since inception and is considered to be a political nightmare for the CA or DA’s office.
Attempts were made to pass a requirement that school board members file financial disclosure statements with the Texas Ethics Commission similar to other elected officials (including legislators).
Legislators heard anecdotal information that trustees “are not doing their job in the interests of the people who elected them.” Many believe trustees should police themselves if they don’t want the legislature to do it for them.
"Nightmare", huh?
Not, however, "impossible".
FAQs from the TASB, 2006, legislative session review
ETHICS
Recall and Financial Statements
Recall elections and requiring school board members to file financial disclosure statements nearly passed the legislature. The recall legislation, which targeted only school board trustees, did not pass because the author of the bill agreed to study the issue to allow input from everyone on the specifics of the legislation.
One proposed bill required only 10 percent of the voter turnout from the last election to recall a school board member. For example, if 300 votes are cast, then 30 signatures of registered voters is all that would be required to overturn an election result.
Currently, no law permits recall of any school board official in Texas.
Lawmakers tried to create a laundry list of detailed responsibilities that school board members must meet to prevent a recall election from being triggered (i.e. attendance at meetings).
Removal of school board members, however, is allowable under current law using the county or district attorney. It has only been done once since inception and is considered to be a political nightmare for the CA or DA’s office.
Attempts were made to pass a requirement that school board members file financial disclosure statements with the Texas Ethics Commission similar to other elected officials (including legislators).
Legislators heard anecdotal information that trustees “are not doing their job in the interests of the people who elected them.” Many believe trustees should police themselves if they don’t want the legislature to do it for them.
"Nightmare", huh?
Not, however, "impossible".
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Thinking about late shifts ... I managed the second shift, (some 900 employees) at my companies operation in Virginia for a few years. Not my favorite assignment. When times were booming 2nd shift ran AFTER first shift, so my "day" ran from 3 in the afternoon to 1 or 2 the following morning. (the boss has to arrive early and stay late.) When business fell off the shifts overlapped, so 2nd shift started at 11:00 and ran till 9 or 10 at night.
I felt there was NEVER enough time to sleep.
Put up with that stuff for 3 years ...
Anyway, sleep and the lack thereof as applied to teenagers is discussed in a number of studies online here and there:
http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2006/06/everything_you_always_wanted_t.php
http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2006/09/more_on_sleep_in_adolescents.php
http://circadiana.blogspot.com/2006/04/more-on-sleep-in-adolescents.html
So, I wonder what the school nurses and the TEA medical-type authorities are thinking about the effect of a longer day on the student's sleep cycles.
I felt there was NEVER enough time to sleep.
Put up with that stuff for 3 years ...
Anyway, sleep and the lack thereof as applied to teenagers is discussed in a number of studies online here and there:
http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2006/06/everything_you_always_wanted_t.php
http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2006/09/more_on_sleep_in_adolescents.php
http://circadiana.blogspot.com/2006/04/more-on-sleep-in-adolescents.html
So, I wonder what the school nurses and the TEA medical-type authorities are thinking about the effect of a longer day on the student's sleep cycles.
An old (2006) article on the 4-day week can be found, here:
http://www.ednews.org/articles/1158/1/An-Unknown-School-Reform-The-Four-Day-Week/Page1.html
One of the things that makes me suspicious is that some very good arguments for such an idea are NOT being made. It's like Sherlock Holmes's "dog, that did not bark, in the night time." Well, why didn't he bark, and why doesn't Dr Lewis explain how the extended day can save BOND money?
Say (for convenience of math, not because the figure is accurate) the High School has 20 chemistry laboratory classrooms with work stations for 20 students each. So for each period of the day, 400 high school kids can do chemistry. (We're taking about the kind with sodium and boron not hormones and pheromones...) With a five period day the MOST, the maximum number, of chemistry students that can physically sit down to a lab workstation is 2000. But the school has 2200 hundred kids, and they district expects 2800 any day now. So, what to do? Well, if the school could somehow run SEVEN periods a day, 400 kids times 7 is 2800 kids at lab workstations. We don't need no more stinkin' classrooms - we just need more hours in the day.
Now, that seems to me to be a very obvious benefit of the longer day. Why doesn't the superintendent make it?
Well, first, of course, he wants (in my opinion) to pass a bond and build the bigger building anyhow. He'd much rather leave behind the big Taj Mahal monument to his own ego than solve the problem at lower cost.
Second, he could extend periods and hours without making ALL kids do ten hours a day, in a four day week. He could implement "shifts" in which half the kids(and their chemistry teachers) start, (in this example) science classes at 7:30 or so and get out of school at 15:30, (taking other classes after, of course) while another shift starts at say 9:30 and goes until 17:30. Overlapping 8 hour days, five days a week. The chemistry teachers of course would have to double as math teachers or some other subject, and class size waivers to allow 25 or so students per class in lecture/recitation classrooms (not limited by lab space) would also be necessary. But getting more hours use out of the limited labs does NOT take more hours from each kid or each teacher. Except in Larry Lewis's Lancaster.
Third, Larry Lewis just doesn't like to do math. The example I citied with 20 classes of 20 times five verus times seven? That sort of thing confuses Dr Larry Lewis, PhD. He just isn't very good at math, as far as I can tell. And so he tries hard not to make mathematical arguments in his presentations. Or, at least, he hasn't since 2005 when he and I had our first, and last, face-to-face meeting in his office and I quizzed him about one of his powerpoint slides ...
Fourth, I believe Dr Lewis doesn't (or didn't) think it was necessary. The board, the parents, and the TEA all trust him, he thought. All he has to do is present a notion, and they'll all leap to embrace and endorse it. Why bother running the numbers?
So, that's my guess, (and it's ONLY a guess) about that. But what I'm trying to say is that the ten hour days isn't ridiculous. We might want to look at it seriously. For selected campuses, sometime next year.
This year, this late in the year ... what a sad joke.
http://www.ednews.org/articles/1158/1/An-Unknown-School-Reform-The-Four-Day-Week/Page1.html
One of the things that makes me suspicious is that some very good arguments for such an idea are NOT being made. It's like Sherlock Holmes's "dog, that did not bark, in the night time." Well, why didn't he bark, and why doesn't Dr Lewis explain how the extended day can save BOND money?
Say (for convenience of math, not because the figure is accurate) the High School has 20 chemistry laboratory classrooms with work stations for 20 students each. So for each period of the day, 400 high school kids can do chemistry. (We're taking about the kind with sodium and boron not hormones and pheromones...) With a five period day the MOST, the maximum number, of chemistry students that can physically sit down to a lab workstation is 2000. But the school has 2200 hundred kids, and they district expects 2800 any day now. So, what to do? Well, if the school could somehow run SEVEN periods a day, 400 kids times 7 is 2800 kids at lab workstations. We don't need no more stinkin' classrooms - we just need more hours in the day.
Now, that seems to me to be a very obvious benefit of the longer day. Why doesn't the superintendent make it?
Well, first, of course, he wants (in my opinion) to pass a bond and build the bigger building anyhow. He'd much rather leave behind the big Taj Mahal monument to his own ego than solve the problem at lower cost.
Second, he could extend periods and hours without making ALL kids do ten hours a day, in a four day week. He could implement "shifts" in which half the kids(and their chemistry teachers) start, (in this example) science classes at 7:30 or so and get out of school at 15:30, (taking other classes after, of course) while another shift starts at say 9:30 and goes until 17:30. Overlapping 8 hour days, five days a week. The chemistry teachers of course would have to double as math teachers or some other subject, and class size waivers to allow 25 or so students per class in lecture/recitation classrooms (not limited by lab space) would also be necessary. But getting more hours use out of the limited labs does NOT take more hours from each kid or each teacher. Except in Larry Lewis's Lancaster.
Third, Larry Lewis just doesn't like to do math. The example I citied with 20 classes of 20 times five verus times seven? That sort of thing confuses Dr Larry Lewis, PhD. He just isn't very good at math, as far as I can tell. And so he tries hard not to make mathematical arguments in his presentations. Or, at least, he hasn't since 2005 when he and I had our first, and last, face-to-face meeting in his office and I quizzed him about one of his powerpoint slides ...
Fourth, I believe Dr Lewis doesn't (or didn't) think it was necessary. The board, the parents, and the TEA all trust him, he thought. All he has to do is present a notion, and they'll all leap to embrace and endorse it. Why bother running the numbers?
So, that's my guess, (and it's ONLY a guess) about that. But what I'm trying to say is that the ten hour days isn't ridiculous. We might want to look at it seriously. For selected campuses, sometime next year.
This year, this late in the year ... what a sad joke.
Evaluation Instrument.
Like everything in the district this year, we're a month or so behind schedule on this little requirement. But as part of the annual budget LAST year, the LISD Board of Trustees published the superintendent's "evaluation instrument".
Elsewhere , I have commented that the Superintendent's evaluation process is like " a runner not only setting his own distance, but holding his own stopwatch. At the end of the race, don't you suppose he could at least tell everybody how fast he thinks he's run? "
So, what five to eight goals has this Superintendent set for himself for this year? Are these goals higher, or "more achievable", than last year's goals? Who will be measuring the progress and publishing the benchmarks?
Does it make any difference that the Trustees have a new board President? Does it matter that Larry Lewis, PhD, is no longer the ONLY PhD on the "Team of Eight" ?
Like everything in the district this year, we're a month or so behind schedule on this little requirement. But as part of the annual budget LAST year, the LISD Board of Trustees published the superintendent's "evaluation instrument".
Elsewhere , I have commented that the Superintendent's evaluation process is like " a runner not only setting his own distance, but holding his own stopwatch. At the end of the race, don't you suppose he could at least tell everybody how fast he thinks he's run? "
So, what five to eight goals has this Superintendent set for himself for this year? Are these goals higher, or "more achievable", than last year's goals? Who will be measuring the progress and publishing the benchmarks?
Does it make any difference that the Trustees have a new board President? Does it matter that Larry Lewis, PhD, is no longer the ONLY PhD on the "Team of Eight" ?
Are you old enough to remember back in the 1990's, before blogging?
Remember "mail lists" ?
Check out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LPP2007/ . Sign up to join the list and get news and views from everybody who is anybody in the effort to restore accountability to the Lancaster ISD.
Remember "mail lists" ?
Check out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LPP2007/ . Sign up to join the list and get news and views from everybody who is anybody in the effort to restore accountability to the Lancaster ISD.
The TEA heard from both the supporters and opponents of the Lancaster ISD's proposed 4-day school week on Thursday. A minor issue arose with having present too MANY Trustees from the LISD board. This risked a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act. The five members attending, (Sue Mendoza, Ed Kirkland, Marie Elliot, Marjorie King, and Carolyn Morris) would have constituted a quorum of the LISD Board of Trustees. The risk was resolved when President Ed Kirkland and most-junior-Trustee Marjorie King voluntarily left the hearing room. Acting Commissioner Scott presided and gave Dr Lewis, on the affirmative, equal time with Trustee Carolyn Morris for the opposition.
Friday the TEA followed up with a faxed request to the District for additional information. Reportedly over 15 substantive concerned with the proposal were raised to the LISD Board For instance, Dr Lewis told the commission that "Transitioning to a 4-day week will allow for implementation of structured science lessons. " The TEA fax quoted the claim and asked "How are CURRENT science lessons implemented? "
The TEA addressed issues regarding meal breaks, staff development requirements, educators' employment contracts, and the districts compliance with "Site Based Committtee" requirements of the Texas Education Code TEC 33.005. ( The "District Site Based Committee" should not be confused with the committee responsible for the "District Improvement Plan" required under TEC 11.252 It is not clear that either committee, required by statute, has reviewed or approved the 4-day proposal.)
The TEA has 30 days in which to consider the proposal. Approval for the waiver, if granted, would provide parents approximately a week to adapt to the new schedule.
Friday the TEA followed up with a faxed request to the District for additional information. Reportedly over 15 substantive concerned with the proposal were raised to the LISD Board For instance, Dr Lewis told the commission that "Transitioning to a 4-day week will allow for implementation of structured science lessons. " The TEA fax quoted the claim and asked "How are CURRENT science lessons implemented? "
The TEA addressed issues regarding meal breaks, staff development requirements, educators' employment contracts, and the districts compliance with "Site Based Committtee" requirements of the Texas Education Code TEC 33.005. ( The "District Site Based Committee" should not be confused with the committee responsible for the "District Improvement Plan" required under TEC 11.252 It is not clear that either committee, required by statute, has reviewed or approved the 4-day proposal.)
The TEA has 30 days in which to consider the proposal. Approval for the waiver, if granted, would provide parents approximately a week to adapt to the new schedule.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
The voice crying in the wilderness is starting to hear a chorus joining in.
Visit http://www.savelisd.blogspot.com/
Visit http://www.savelisd.blogspot.com/
Thursday, May 17, 2007
The remnant of Today Newspaper has a feature today regarding Larry Lewis's response to the defeat of the district's bond proposal:
Dr Lewis believes that if enough parents had received the district's message, the opposition and their motivations wouldn't have mattered. "If enough parents vote, we don't have a thing to worry about," he said. "Even with all the information, our parents don't vote. We're looking at about 2,400 votes and 1,360 early votes. When we get the overall numbers I'll be surprised if we had 500-600 parents vote. That's the thing we need to do a better job on. First, how do we get the parents involved in their children's education? Then we have to get them to vote." He said a group sold their opposition to the bond in return for political support in upcoming elections.
Let's see if I have that straight. The majority of Lancaster voters are lazy; and won't be moved to the ballot box. Another huge number of voters are stupid, and have been fooled by a few voters who are just evil -- as evidenced by the fact that these few disagree with Dr Lewis. There are only a few hundred voters who are energetic, wise, virtuous, and above all, obedient ... acquiesent to Dr Lewis's will.
I'm not sure this is exactly a winning message to take into another election, but if that's how the man feels -- perception becomes reality.
But just why was Dr Lewis unable to persuade anybody? One thing even his detractors will confess is that Dr Lewis certainly spent enough money, put in enough personal face-to-face time, and tried really really hard.
He's not lazy.
Let's consider the scope of the failure here. Even after Dr Lewis and his supporters repeatedly spent a ton of time and money they still failed to turn out the "base" of support he claims to believe is lurking in the community. In three successive bond campaigns Dr Lewis has promoted an identical "tear down" plan for the district's elementary schools. His supporting Political Action Committees have taken out full page ads in Today Newspapers, and multiple ads in Belo's "Neighbors" weekly. The PAC had huge signs in yards and along roadways all over town. They mailed out slick advertisements to every postal customer in the district including endorsements from county commissioner John Wiley Price, Senator Royce West, and Mayor Joe Tillotson.
(Excuse me, but just exactly who is selling just exactly what in return for political support in upcoming elections here? )
The district itself dared skirt the line against electioneering. Dr Lewis directed the district website to post "informational" material about the bond -- much of it deceptive. (For instance, using the term "new" schools instead of "replacement"; suggesting the HB1 tax reductions would RESULT from a "yes" vote on the bond rather than arrive independently of such a vote; and misquoting the "current" tax rate at $1.74 when the central appraisal district had already posted $1.40. ) In both fall and spring the headline of his "community" newsletters regarded the need for the bond; and no such newsletters were published when a bond is NOT in the offing. Huge "your bond funds in use, thank you Lancaster" signs went up on school properties where the 2004 bonds were finally being applied, and "future site of your school" signs went up on property where the developer hasn't even finished draining the site. Even tax-payer funded city newsletters were co-opted into advertising for the bond. Dr Lewis and his staff spent innumerable hours in churches, town hall meetings, joint meetings with the city, talking to business groups, appearing in front of TV cameras.
Three times we've been through this.
Thousands of dollars and hundreds of LISD employee man-hours were committted to Dr Lewis's "tear down" propositions. He's taken money from the Allen Group, the Corgan architects, the Gallagher Construction company, from John Wiley Price's re-election campaign ... the Superintendent's "tear down" plan collected support from everybody but the voters. He's dragged out the city manager, the mayor, the Lancaster Economic Development Council, various city councilmen, all to do nothing but spend an evening nodding their heads in agreement while Dr Lewis talks. He talked to parents. He talked to civic clubs. He talked and talked and promised and cajoled and wheedled. He's begged, he's borrowed, and he's -- publicly and loudly -- prayed.
All that talk, all that time and all that money; every word, every dime, every minute, now been proven wasted.
Wasted time and money doesn't discourage Larry Lewis, of course. Hey! It's not HIS money.
As for the time, well, he spent most of it in the spotlight with a microphone in his hand. From his perspective, maybe it wasn't such a waste of time, after all.
Dr Lewis believes that if enough parents had received the district's message, the opposition and their motivations wouldn't have mattered. "If enough parents vote, we don't have a thing to worry about," he said. "Even with all the information, our parents don't vote. We're looking at about 2,400 votes and 1,360 early votes. When we get the overall numbers I'll be surprised if we had 500-600 parents vote. That's the thing we need to do a better job on. First, how do we get the parents involved in their children's education? Then we have to get them to vote." He said a group sold their opposition to the bond in return for political support in upcoming elections.
Let's see if I have that straight. The majority of Lancaster voters are lazy; and won't be moved to the ballot box. Another huge number of voters are stupid, and have been fooled by a few voters who are just evil -- as evidenced by the fact that these few disagree with Dr Lewis. There are only a few hundred voters who are energetic, wise, virtuous, and above all, obedient ... acquiesent to Dr Lewis's will.
I'm not sure this is exactly a winning message to take into another election, but if that's how the man feels -- perception becomes reality.
But just why was Dr Lewis unable to persuade anybody? One thing even his detractors will confess is that Dr Lewis certainly spent enough money, put in enough personal face-to-face time, and tried really really hard.
He's not lazy.
Let's consider the scope of the failure here. Even after Dr Lewis and his supporters repeatedly spent a ton of time and money they still failed to turn out the "base" of support he claims to believe is lurking in the community. In three successive bond campaigns Dr Lewis has promoted an identical "tear down" plan for the district's elementary schools. His supporting Political Action Committees have taken out full page ads in Today Newspapers, and multiple ads in Belo's "Neighbors" weekly. The PAC had huge signs in yards and along roadways all over town. They mailed out slick advertisements to every postal customer in the district including endorsements from county commissioner John Wiley Price, Senator Royce West, and Mayor Joe Tillotson.
(Excuse me, but just exactly who is selling just exactly what in return for political support in upcoming elections here? )
The district itself dared skirt the line against electioneering. Dr Lewis directed the district website to post "informational" material about the bond -- much of it deceptive. (For instance, using the term "new" schools instead of "replacement"; suggesting the HB1 tax reductions would RESULT from a "yes" vote on the bond rather than arrive independently of such a vote; and misquoting the "current" tax rate at $1.74 when the central appraisal district had already posted $1.40. ) In both fall and spring the headline of his "community" newsletters regarded the need for the bond; and no such newsletters were published when a bond is NOT in the offing. Huge "your bond funds in use, thank you Lancaster" signs went up on school properties where the 2004 bonds were finally being applied, and "future site of your school" signs went up on property where the developer hasn't even finished draining the site. Even tax-payer funded city newsletters were co-opted into advertising for the bond. Dr Lewis and his staff spent innumerable hours in churches, town hall meetings, joint meetings with the city, talking to business groups, appearing in front of TV cameras.
Three times we've been through this.
Thousands of dollars and hundreds of LISD employee man-hours were committted to Dr Lewis's "tear down" propositions. He's taken money from the Allen Group, the Corgan architects, the Gallagher Construction company, from John Wiley Price's re-election campaign ... the Superintendent's "tear down" plan collected support from everybody but the voters. He's dragged out the city manager, the mayor, the Lancaster Economic Development Council, various city councilmen, all to do nothing but spend an evening nodding their heads in agreement while Dr Lewis talks. He talked to parents. He talked to civic clubs. He talked and talked and promised and cajoled and wheedled. He's begged, he's borrowed, and he's -- publicly and loudly -- prayed.
All that talk, all that time and all that money; every word, every dime, every minute, now been proven wasted.
Wasted time and money doesn't discourage Larry Lewis, of course. Hey! It's not HIS money.
As for the time, well, he spent most of it in the spotlight with a microphone in his hand. From his perspective, maybe it wasn't such a waste of time, after all.
The Taxpayers Involved In Governement Education Reform (T.I.G.E.R.)s are a shoestring, grassroots political action committee in Lancaster. For the last three elections the TIGERs have gathered a few bucks each from a few hundred donors. With that limited funded the TIGERS sent out a few postcards discussing the Lancaster ISD's three recent school bond proposals.
Each election, the bonds were defeated.
All that the TIGERs have done is channel the voices of the Lancaster community. We didn't --couldn't --- create this sentiment. We simply help people in the community talk to each other, ask questions and find their polling place. The district refuses to hear, much less answer, the questions, so they keep getting surprised by the election results.
Will the community support building more schools, new schools? Yes, sure. Will voters favor demolishing existing schools – as they’ve already been done on one campus?. No, no, and no. Clearly, Lancaster is not Highland Park, and "tear downs" aren't a popular idea in our community. Three times we've been asked to approve a plan involving "tear downs" and three times we've rejected that plan. When will voters approve MORE buildings on NEW sites? As soon as that proposition hits the ballots.
Is the community willing to tax itself to the max to build new schools? We're within 11 cents of state tax caps -- and our valuations will support a $60 million dollar or so bond package. Will we go to the max for our kids? Yes, sure. Will we approve a package that asks for a blank check -- 30, 80, 100 million more than our credit limit? No, no and no. Three times we've been offered a bond package that exceed our debt cap and three times we’ve rejected it. Our board is obviously not shy about frequent bond elections. When will voters approve maximum tax rates? As soon as proposed maximum is really the max.
Is the community willing to borrow for a new "teacher resource center", a "maintenance center", a bus barn, stadium renovations, and short term buys of computers, staff cars, and grounds keeping equipment? No, no, and no. Three times those proposals have been set before the voters and three times the voters have rejected those plans. When will voters put children first? When the propositions set the same priority.
Has the district used its 2004 bond funds wisely? For instance, when a $14 million dollar estimate for renovation works drew bids costing nearly $30 million, did the district attempt at least half of the renovation work? Did they go back to a citizens’ oversight committee to prioritize the projects with the money they had? No, no, and no. Oh, the money was spent LEGALLY, sure. It's legal to use 30-year loans to pay for choir robes, squad cars, computer software -- it's legal. But wise? And are those the reasons voters approved the 2004 loans? No. The point of separate propositions is to ensure each project and each school has a separate approved budget limit so funds don't slosh from one purpose today to another purpose tomorrow. When will voters approve bond propositions? When the vote makes a difference to the projects.
Is this some kind of anti-school, anti-child, anti-tax, anti-Superintendent effort? No, no, no, and no. The biggest problem our voters have with our superintendent is he insists on having his own way over the wishes of the voters. It's certainly not a racial thing. A black incumbant trustee who opposed the bond defeated a black challenger who supported it. A white incumbant trustee who supported the bond lost to a white challenger running on a "good stewardship" and accountability -- anti-bond -- platform. Will we support Dr Lewis? When he supports us.
Are the TIGERS going to defeat another bond package next November? If the proposals are the same a fourth time, the TIGERs will not have any difficulty whatever in continuing to channel the existing voter sentiments. But if the district comes back with four or five or so small packages dedicated to fixing existing schools, building more new classrooms, and focused on children first -- the TIGERs will be leading the effort to PASS the proposals.
Each election, the bonds were defeated.
All that the TIGERs have done is channel the voices of the Lancaster community. We didn't --couldn't --- create this sentiment. We simply help people in the community talk to each other, ask questions and find their polling place. The district refuses to hear, much less answer, the questions, so they keep getting surprised by the election results.
Will the community support building more schools, new schools? Yes, sure. Will voters favor demolishing existing schools – as they’ve already been done on one campus?. No, no, and no. Clearly, Lancaster is not Highland Park, and "tear downs" aren't a popular idea in our community. Three times we've been asked to approve a plan involving "tear downs" and three times we've rejected that plan. When will voters approve MORE buildings on NEW sites? As soon as that proposition hits the ballots.
Is the community willing to tax itself to the max to build new schools? We're within 11 cents of state tax caps -- and our valuations will support a $60 million dollar or so bond package. Will we go to the max for our kids? Yes, sure. Will we approve a package that asks for a blank check -- 30, 80, 100 million more than our credit limit? No, no and no. Three times we've been offered a bond package that exceed our debt cap and three times we’ve rejected it. Our board is obviously not shy about frequent bond elections. When will voters approve maximum tax rates? As soon as proposed maximum is really the max.
Is the community willing to borrow for a new "teacher resource center", a "maintenance center", a bus barn, stadium renovations, and short term buys of computers, staff cars, and grounds keeping equipment? No, no, and no. Three times those proposals have been set before the voters and three times the voters have rejected those plans. When will voters put children first? When the propositions set the same priority.
Has the district used its 2004 bond funds wisely? For instance, when a $14 million dollar estimate for renovation works drew bids costing nearly $30 million, did the district attempt at least half of the renovation work? Did they go back to a citizens’ oversight committee to prioritize the projects with the money they had? No, no, and no. Oh, the money was spent LEGALLY, sure. It's legal to use 30-year loans to pay for choir robes, squad cars, computer software -- it's legal. But wise? And are those the reasons voters approved the 2004 loans? No. The point of separate propositions is to ensure each project and each school has a separate approved budget limit so funds don't slosh from one purpose today to another purpose tomorrow. When will voters approve bond propositions? When the vote makes a difference to the projects.
Is this some kind of anti-school, anti-child, anti-tax, anti-Superintendent effort? No, no, no, and no. The biggest problem our voters have with our superintendent is he insists on having his own way over the wishes of the voters. It's certainly not a racial thing. A black incumbant trustee who opposed the bond defeated a black challenger who supported it. A white incumbant trustee who supported the bond lost to a white challenger running on a "good stewardship" and accountability -- anti-bond -- platform. Will we support Dr Lewis? When he supports us.
Are the TIGERS going to defeat another bond package next November? If the proposals are the same a fourth time, the TIGERs will not have any difficulty whatever in continuing to channel the existing voter sentiments. But if the district comes back with four or five or so small packages dedicated to fixing existing schools, building more new classrooms, and focused on children first -- the TIGERs will be leading the effort to PASS the proposals.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
6:30 p.m. The election is winding down. Turnout appears to be light. We'll see what difference that makes. Early results will be available shortly after 7:00 p.m.
6:41 p.m. The Dallas County Election result web site offers results in several formats. The comma separated value is quick but does not report precinct level detail. On the other hand, for early voting -- who cares? Let's just get totals and analyze as we go.
7:00 p.m. Morris over Dixon, King over Vick, Prop one Y 468 N 904 Prop 2 Y 442 N 920 Prop 3 Y 432 N N 936 Prop 4 Y 460 N 910 Prop 5 390 N 978 and Prop 6 Y 517 and N 845
7:10 p.m. I have to say I'm especially pleased and surprised to see King taking an early lead over Vick. The Trustee seats are very minor races, and a few dozen vote "surge" may change things. But the hard core electorate seems to have totally repudiated the current LISD oversight and direction.
7:31 p.m. Let's reformat the early results for easier viewing.
LISD place 3 Carolyn Ann Morris Barbara Ann Dixon
123 59.71% 83 40.29%
LISD place 6 Marjorie Ann King Nannette Vick
137 59.83% 92 40.17%
AGAINST / FOR
Lancaster ISD Bond 1 904 65.89% / 468 34.11%
Lancaster ISD Bond 2 920 67.55% / 442 32.45%
Lancaster ISD Bond 3 936 68.47% / 431 31.53%
Lancaster ISD Bond 4 910 66.42% / 460 33.58%
Lancaster ISD Bond 5 978 71.49% / 390 28.51%
Lancaster ISD Bond 6 845 62.04% / 517 37.96%
09:10 p.m. Another Dallas County update posted at nine. No update on the Morris / Dixon race. King has slipped one percentage point against Vick, and now the challenger is "only" leading 58.8% to 41.1%.
The bond results look like this:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -AGAINST / FOR
Lancaster ISD Bond 1 1248 64% / 676 35%
Lancaster ISD Bond 2 1278 67% / 633 33%
Lancaster ISD Bond 3 1305 68% / 609 32%
Lancaster ISD Bond 4 1258 66% / 657 34%
Lancaster ISD Bond 5 1357 71% / 565 29%
Lancaster ISD Bond 6 1172 61% / 736 39%
9:40 p.m. Another update to the Dallas County Elections website posted. Sadly, no additional news about Lancaster was included.
I think it extremely unlikely a 2/3rd landslide will be reversed at this point.
From a taxpayer's and activist's viewpoint, I am, of course, thrilled. But from a blogger's perspective this runaway result is almost disappointing. No analysis of the new voters in new neighborhoods versus the old power structure in historic downtown. No nuances of the "straight party" voters who might, or might not, have noticed the down-ballot decisions ... This looks like an out-and-out rout.
10:oo p.m. As near as I can tell from the Dallas County Elections site, the south side voting (all done at the Elsie Robertson Middle School) has all been reported. That leaves the north side of Lancaster -- voting at the Recreation Center -- uncounted, as yet.
The Cedardale site for the new elementary school may sway a number of voters in these precincts. Maybe. But not, I think, enough to swing the entire election. Not at this point.
There. Some analysis, after all.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
After pilot programs, Schools Reject Laptops
From the NY Times:
...(T)wo educational consultants, Hayes Connection and the Greaves Group, conducted a study of the nation’s 2,500 largest school districts last year and found that a quarter of the 1,000 respondents already had one-to-one computing, and fully half expected to by 2011.
Yet school officials here and in several other places said laptops had been abused by students, did not fit into lesson plans, and showed little, if any, measurable effect on grades and test scores at a time of increased pressure to meet state standards. Districts have dropped laptop programs after resistance from teachers, logistical and technical problems, and escalating maintenance costs.
Last month, the United States Department of Education released a study showing no difference in academic achievement between students who used educational software programs for math and reading and those who did not.
In one of the largest ongoing studies, the Texas Center for Educational Research, a nonprofit group, has so far found no overall difference on state test scores between 21 middle schools where students received laptops in 2004, and 21 schools where they did not, though some data suggest that high-achieving students with laptops may perform better in math than their counterparts without. When six of the schools in the study that do not have laptops were given the option of getting them this year, they opted against.
From the NY Times:
...(T)wo educational consultants, Hayes Connection and the Greaves Group, conducted a study of the nation’s 2,500 largest school districts last year and found that a quarter of the 1,000 respondents already had one-to-one computing, and fully half expected to by 2011.
Yet school officials here and in several other places said laptops had been abused by students, did not fit into lesson plans, and showed little, if any, measurable effect on grades and test scores at a time of increased pressure to meet state standards. Districts have dropped laptop programs after resistance from teachers, logistical and technical problems, and escalating maintenance costs.
Last month, the United States Department of Education released a study showing no difference in academic achievement between students who used educational software programs for math and reading and those who did not.
In one of the largest ongoing studies, the Texas Center for Educational Research, a nonprofit group, has so far found no overall difference on state test scores between 21 middle schools where students received laptops in 2004, and 21 schools where they did not, though some data suggest that high-achieving students with laptops may perform better in math than their counterparts without. When six of the schools in the study that do not have laptops were given the option of getting them this year, they opted against.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
The on-again, off-again meeting of the Lancaster Board of Trustees regarding the 2005-06 annual financial report and audit is on again. The agenda is posted for April 9th. No time for the meeting has been released on-line, but hardcopy of the agenda available at 422 Centre Street indicates the meeting will be at 7:00 p.m.
Unlike the recent meeting regarding Superintendent Larry Lewis's annual performance review and evaluation, the financial workshop is, at present, scheduled for an open session at which the public may be in audience.
The annual report was due to the state January 31st. Shirley Neeley, Texas Commissioner of Education, has released to the press reports that Lancaster was not the only district late with their filing. For the 2004-05 school year, 5 out of 1079 Texas ISDs filed late. Region Ten financial officials report that the only district in the last decade other than Lancaster to file late was Wilmer Hutchins. Superintendent Lewis has assured the community that problems were minor. "The checkbook and general ledger were not in balance." If so, this is the second year district financial records showed discrepancies. The FIRST (Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas) indicator seven for the 2004-05 school year showed the district's various PEIMS categories failed to reconcile within the TEA's tolerance of 45, being in fact out of agreement by 121.02% .
In August of 2006 Superintendent Lewis set as a performance goal for himself and the district that:
Lancaster ISD will be a financially responsible school district.
Measurements:
1) The district will show an increase in fund balance ... meet the 15% fund balance requirement.
2) ... will pay off the existing M&0 debt of $1.6 million
3) ... maintain its rating of "superior" on the FIRST mechanism.
4) ... improve its management reporting process...
The Trustees' evaluation of the Superintendent's performance on these financial goals and measurements were all conducted in "executive session" -- unheard by the public in attendance -- on March 26th. The April 9th meeting, in open session, will provide the first public hearing of what steps the district administration was taking between August and January to achieve these goals, and what led up to the actual outcomes:
1) a negative fund balance, unless
2) additional Tax Anticipation notes (new debt and loans ) for current year M&O are taken out against next year's state ADA payments -- current estimates of TAN requirements exceed $3 million.
3) the FIRST rating will be "unacceptable" and
4) the management reporting process is, if nothing else, slower than in previous years.
Unlike the recent meeting regarding Superintendent Larry Lewis's annual performance review and evaluation, the financial workshop is, at present, scheduled for an open session at which the public may be in audience.
The annual report was due to the state January 31st. Shirley Neeley, Texas Commissioner of Education, has released to the press reports that Lancaster was not the only district late with their filing. For the 2004-05 school year, 5 out of 1079 Texas ISDs filed late. Region Ten financial officials report that the only district in the last decade other than Lancaster to file late was Wilmer Hutchins. Superintendent Lewis has assured the community that problems were minor. "The checkbook and general ledger were not in balance." If so, this is the second year district financial records showed discrepancies. The FIRST (Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas) indicator seven for the 2004-05 school year showed the district's various PEIMS categories failed to reconcile within the TEA's tolerance of 45, being in fact out of agreement by 121.02% .
In August of 2006 Superintendent Lewis set as a performance goal for himself and the district that:
Lancaster ISD will be a financially responsible school district.
Measurements:
1) The district will show an increase in fund balance ... meet the 15% fund balance requirement.
2) ... will pay off the existing M&0 debt of $1.6 million
3) ... maintain its rating of "superior" on the FIRST mechanism.
4) ... improve its management reporting process...
The Trustees' evaluation of the Superintendent's performance on these financial goals and measurements were all conducted in "executive session" -- unheard by the public in attendance -- on March 26th. The April 9th meeting, in open session, will provide the first public hearing of what steps the district administration was taking between August and January to achieve these goals, and what led up to the actual outcomes:
1) a negative fund balance, unless
2) additional Tax Anticipation notes (new debt and loans ) for current year M&O are taken out against next year's state ADA payments -- current estimates of TAN requirements exceed $3 million.
3) the FIRST rating will be "unacceptable" and
4) the management reporting process is, if nothing else, slower than in previous years.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Saturday, March 24, 2007
LANCASTER ISD SUPERINTENDENT'S EVALUATION
Monday night March 26th, the Lancaster ISD Board of Trustees will hold a public hearing to consider the annual evaluation instrument for LISD Superintendent Dr. Larry D Lewis. Topics of interest may include the sudden departure of Eugene P Smith in January and the failure of LISD to file required annual financial reports of audit with the Texas Education Agency. Both personnel retention matters and financial reporting improvements were among specific goals the Board expected Dr Lewis to accomplish.
Last December 18th the Board has extended Dr Lewis's contract and approved a 4% salary increase bringing his total annual compensation to $197,600, exclusive of benefits and his expense account. The vote was 5-0-2 with Carolyn Morris abstaining and Rick Glover absent. Chief Financial Officer Eugene Smith was in attendance.
It seems unlikely the Board will issue a poor evaluation to a Superintendent just awarded a raise In the interests of completeness the following is provided, nevertheless.
This year's annual evaluation process actually began February 20th 2006 as the Trustees completed Dr Lewis's evaluation for the 2005-06 school year. That evaluation was approved 5-1-1 with Russ Johnson voting "no" and Rick Glover absent.
On March 9th 2006 the Trustees in cooperation with Texas Association of School Boards (TASB) representative Bill Nemir established the outlines of Dr Lewis's performance goals and evaluation measurements.
Also in March the LISD Board approved a referendum on a $93 Million bond package. ( In May voters refused the bond 54% to 46% )
Dr Lewis and the administration formalized the goals and measurements during April and May. On June 5th the Board considered the draft evaluation instrument and proffered one amendment:
"The Superintendent will keep the Board fully informed, on an equal basis, on any and all matters pertaining to District events, District personnel, the expenditure of District funds, or the use of District facilities." The amendment passed 3-2-2 Glover and Kirkland voting no. The amended goals were approved 4-2-1, Glover and Kirkland again voting no.
The district published Superintendent Lewis's goals part of annual budget at public hearing August 28 2006. (See image files attached.)
At that same meeting the Trustees approved a referendum on a $215 Million bond package. (In November voters refused the bond 52% to 48% )
An interesting wrinkle to the LISD 2006-07 budget was a plan to pay certain salaried employees from 2004 Bond reserve (borrowed) funds rather than from the current income. As recorded in the minutes:
Dr. Lewis explained how some salaries were moved into different programs and departments and how it reflects on the budget.
Various finance and reporting goals were established for Dr Lewis's annual evaluation. In particular, Dr Lewis hoped to accomplish the following
Following the audit of the 2005-06 school year, the district will show an increase in its fund balance.
The district will maintain its rating of "superior" on the FIRST mechanism.
The district will improve its management reporting process
and
Creating an award winning Governmental Finance Officers Association (GFOA) comprehensive annual report.
In practice it appears those goals will remain unmet.
LISD's fiscal year for the 2005-06 school year closed August 31st 2006. Final bills and payments for the 2005-06 operation were to be booked by December. The fiscal year's annual financial report was due to the Texas Education Agency by January 31st 2007. An informal grace period allowed by TEA ended 28 February. According to TEA and as of Friday 23 March the district had still failed to provide the required reports. There is no valid report on the fund balance. The FIRST rating will necessarily be, according to TEA auditor Rita Chase, "substandard". The only member of the LISD administration belonging to the GFOA is no longer employed. And there are no Awards in the offing for an annual report that has not been completed.
Last March the LISD board agreed to use one of the following "grades" for the Superintendent's annual report card:
E = Progress is Exceptional and exceeds expectations
P = Progress is Profound and is on target
M = Progress is Moderate and needs improvement
In the LISD, "Failure" is not an option.
Monday night March 26th, the Lancaster ISD Board of Trustees will hold a public hearing to consider the annual evaluation instrument for LISD Superintendent Dr. Larry D Lewis. Topics of interest may include the sudden departure of Eugene P Smith in January and the failure of LISD to file required annual financial reports of audit with the Texas Education Agency. Both personnel retention matters and financial reporting improvements were among specific goals the Board expected Dr Lewis to accomplish.
Last December 18th the Board has extended Dr Lewis's contract and approved a 4% salary increase bringing his total annual compensation to $197,600, exclusive of benefits and his expense account. The vote was 5-0-2 with Carolyn Morris abstaining and Rick Glover absent. Chief Financial Officer Eugene Smith was in attendance.
It seems unlikely the Board will issue a poor evaluation to a Superintendent just awarded a raise In the interests of completeness the following is provided, nevertheless.
This year's annual evaluation process actually began February 20th 2006 as the Trustees completed Dr Lewis's evaluation for the 2005-06 school year. That evaluation was approved 5-1-1 with Russ Johnson voting "no" and Rick Glover absent.
On March 9th 2006 the Trustees in cooperation with Texas Association of School Boards (TASB) representative Bill Nemir established the outlines of Dr Lewis's performance goals and evaluation measurements.
Also in March the LISD Board approved a referendum on a $93 Million bond package. ( In May voters refused the bond 54% to 46% )
Dr Lewis and the administration formalized the goals and measurements during April and May. On June 5th the Board considered the draft evaluation instrument and proffered one amendment:
"The Superintendent will keep the Board fully informed, on an equal basis, on any and all matters pertaining to District events, District personnel, the expenditure of District funds, or the use of District facilities." The amendment passed 3-2-2 Glover and Kirkland voting no. The amended goals were approved 4-2-1, Glover and Kirkland again voting no.
The district published Superintendent Lewis's goals part of annual budget at public hearing August 28 2006. (See image files attached.)
At that same meeting the Trustees approved a referendum on a $215 Million bond package. (In November voters refused the bond 52% to 48% )
An interesting wrinkle to the LISD 2006-07 budget was a plan to pay certain salaried employees from 2004 Bond reserve (borrowed) funds rather than from the current income. As recorded in the minutes:
Dr. Lewis explained how some salaries were moved into different programs and departments and how it reflects on the budget.
Various finance and reporting goals were established for Dr Lewis's annual evaluation. In particular, Dr Lewis hoped to accomplish the following
Following the audit of the 2005-06 school year, the district will show an increase in its fund balance.
The district will maintain its rating of "superior" on the FIRST mechanism.
The district will improve its management reporting process
and
Creating an award winning Governmental Finance Officers Association (GFOA) comprehensive annual report.
In practice it appears those goals will remain unmet.
LISD's fiscal year for the 2005-06 school year closed August 31st 2006. Final bills and payments for the 2005-06 operation were to be booked by December. The fiscal year's annual financial report was due to the Texas Education Agency by January 31st 2007. An informal grace period allowed by TEA ended 28 February. According to TEA and as of Friday 23 March the district had still failed to provide the required reports. There is no valid report on the fund balance. The FIRST rating will necessarily be, according to TEA auditor Rita Chase, "substandard". The only member of the LISD administration belonging to the GFOA is no longer employed. And there are no Awards in the offing for an annual report that has not been completed.
Last March the LISD board agreed to use one of the following "grades" for the Superintendent's annual report card:
E = Progress is Exceptional and exceeds expectations
P = Progress is Profound and is on target
M = Progress is Moderate and needs improvement
In the LISD, "Failure" is not an option.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
The Team of Eight, or, Honesty is one of two competing policies.
Board President Nannette Vick and Lancaster ISD Superintendent Larry Lewis had what diplomats call "a frank exchange of views" (and the rest of us call 'an argument') about the first part of the first proposition on the new May 2007 bond.
The slide describing the proposal reads:
3 Replacement Elementary Schools
(West Main, Pleasant Run, Lancaster Elementary -- (LES will become 2nd middle school)
Ms Vick Can I interject? I read that 4 or 5 times before I cleared that in my own mind ... When I looked down, I was immediately confused. That's not really hard... But can you make that a little plainer, that we are NOT tearing down the middle school? That could be some confusion out there. So, we need to make sure .. this is not a replacement of a structure.... It's just the use of words.
Russ Johnson: It will have the name of the school in Boardwalk .. Lancaster Elementary.
Vicks: I don't care about the name Lancaster ... That three replacement elementary schools' infers that there's going to be a new West Main, which we want; a news Pleasant Run, which we want, -- a new Middle School -- we're TEARING DOWN a Middle School ? Surely we're tearing down a Middle School? No we're not. We have no intentions of tearing down the middle school. But see how the mind would carry that thought forward? So, let's remove that. And say, ' replacement of two and building of one new elementary ...'
Lewis interrupting : But it's not new. Those kids are going to be ... "
Vicks interrupting back: The structure's not there so it WILL be new. Don't argue. Say, 'Yes Miss Vick'.
Lewis: No. But, I have to explain to you Ms Vick, I think you may be... I don't want you to give out correct --uh -- incorrect information.
Ms Vick: Well, I won't.
Lewis: But the students are already here that are going to go into that new building ...
Vick: Exactly ...
Lewis: ... so it's not a new elementary.
Vick: But ...
Lewis: It's a new building.
Vick: What does replacement say to you?
Lewis: That we're going to replace that school.
Vick: What does replacement say to you when I say we're going to tear down Pleasant Run?
Lewis: It's just a different form of replacement
Vick: It's the use of words, okay? That's all it is. We need to make sure people understand we're not tearing down the middle school.
----
Kudos, for once, to Board President Vick for attempting to clarify to voters that the proposition is to treat current elementary schools in Lancaaster as "tear downs". The sites are great, and the buildings are fine for the students who occupy them now. But when the new kids from all the new construction of new homes start showing up, then those same buildings will not be new and big and modern enough. So, Dr Lewis proposes tearing them down.
And when this "different form of replacement" is challenged by the nominal leader of Dr Lewis's Board, he tells her "No."
Okay, just so we know who's driving this sled. Even for the lead dog, it seems the view never changes.
Board President Nannette Vick and Lancaster ISD Superintendent Larry Lewis had what diplomats call "a frank exchange of views" (and the rest of us call 'an argument') about the first part of the first proposition on the new May 2007 bond.
The slide describing the proposal reads:
3 Replacement Elementary Schools
(West Main, Pleasant Run, Lancaster Elementary -- (LES will become 2nd middle school)
Ms Vick Can I interject? I read that 4 or 5 times before I cleared that in my own mind ... When I looked down, I was immediately confused. That's not really hard... But can you make that a little plainer, that we are NOT tearing down the middle school? That could be some confusion out there. So, we need to make sure .. this is not a replacement of a structure.... It's just the use of words.
Russ Johnson: It will have the name of the school in Boardwalk .. Lancaster Elementary.
Vicks: I don't care about the name Lancaster ... That three replacement elementary schools' infers that there's going to be a new West Main, which we want; a news Pleasant Run, which we want, -- a new Middle School -- we're TEARING DOWN a Middle School ? Surely we're tearing down a Middle School? No we're not. We have no intentions of tearing down the middle school. But see how the mind would carry that thought forward? So, let's remove that. And say, ' replacement of two and building of one new elementary ...'
Lewis interrupting : But it's not new. Those kids are going to be ... "
Vicks interrupting back: The structure's not there so it WILL be new. Don't argue. Say, 'Yes Miss Vick'.
Lewis: No. But, I have to explain to you Ms Vick, I think you may be... I don't want you to give out correct --uh -- incorrect information.
Ms Vick: Well, I won't.
Lewis: But the students are already here that are going to go into that new building ...
Vick: Exactly ...
Lewis: ... so it's not a new elementary.
Vick: But ...
Lewis: It's a new building.
Vick: What does replacement say to you?
Lewis: That we're going to replace that school.
Vick: What does replacement say to you when I say we're going to tear down Pleasant Run?
Lewis: It's just a different form of replacement
Vick: It's the use of words, okay? That's all it is. We need to make sure people understand we're not tearing down the middle school.
----
Kudos, for once, to Board President Vick for attempting to clarify to voters that the proposition is to treat current elementary schools in Lancaaster as "tear downs". The sites are great, and the buildings are fine for the students who occupy them now. But when the new kids from all the new construction of new homes start showing up, then those same buildings will not be new and big and modern enough. So, Dr Lewis proposes tearing them down.
And when this "different form of replacement" is challenged by the nominal leader of Dr Lewis's Board, he tells her "No."
Okay, just so we know who's driving this sled. Even for the lead dog, it seems the view never changes.
Not quite ordinary, yet.
Friday, TEA released preliminary data on 3rd and 5th grade reading scores. The Lancaster ISD reported their own gains for 5th graders at LISD at about 20% over last year. The crowd in attendance jumped to their feet and cheered (Except for those on crutches, of course. Even Larry Lewis's miraculous powers only extend so far.)
Now, last year for 5th grade the calculated “gains” in Lancaster were actually DOWN from 04 by about 10% So we might have expected / predicted a pretty good bounce this by the purely statistical pattern of "regression to the mean". And this 5th grade "bounce" is different from the 3rd grade numbers, which seem to be too high to be ordinary for two years in a row.
But a 30% bounce is the 2nd highest gain in my sample over some 111 data pairs.
Crandall, the small district, had a 58% gain one year (the sample max) and a 26% gain another year (the next biggest gain in the data set). Crandall also, predicitably, had big losses offsetting these gains in other years, and represented the minimum FALLS (21% and 19%) among the data. Wilmer-Hutchins ISD also had near max gains of 14% and 15% gains in their “good” (fraudulent) years and crashed back to minimum (falling) gains in their off years. (a 65% fall in the 2004-05 tests.)
Part of the current gain for Lancaster 5th grade results from starting at a low baseline. On percent passing, we fell one percent last year, from 52% passing to 51% passing, at the same time the rest of the state was gaining from 75% to 81% passing. So our relative score fell from 69% (of the state value) to 62% of that value, for a minus ten percent result. Negative gains are reported as a "fall".
Even now, the district is gloating about a passing rate of roughly 66% … which is up 30% over 2005's 51% passing rate. But 66% is still well below the state passing rate of 80% passing. Comparing to the state, 66/80 is, for 2006, about 82%, up from 2005's 62%. This is a 20% gain. It's a great gain but it is not exorbitant; it shows better passing rates, but rates that still are about 20% below "ordinary" for Texas 5th Graders.
TEA reports a significant number of students in all grades who fall short of standards during the first administration of TAKS tests nevertheless prove their ability to pass on the second or third attempt. It's possible the Lancaster 5th graders will continue to gain against state averages as later results are accumulated.
Friday, TEA released preliminary data on 3rd and 5th grade reading scores. The Lancaster ISD reported their own gains for 5th graders at LISD at about 20% over last year. The crowd in attendance jumped to their feet and cheered (Except for those on crutches, of course. Even Larry Lewis's miraculous powers only extend so far.)
Now, last year for 5th grade the calculated “gains” in Lancaster were actually DOWN from 04 by about 10% So we might have expected / predicted a pretty good bounce this by the purely statistical pattern of "regression to the mean". And this 5th grade "bounce" is different from the 3rd grade numbers, which seem to be too high to be ordinary for two years in a row.
But a 30% bounce is the 2nd highest gain in my sample over some 111 data pairs.
Crandall, the small district, had a 58% gain one year (the sample max) and a 26% gain another year (the next biggest gain in the data set). Crandall also, predicitably, had big losses offsetting these gains in other years, and represented the minimum FALLS (21% and 19%) among the data. Wilmer-Hutchins ISD also had near max gains of 14% and 15% gains in their “good” (fraudulent) years and crashed back to minimum (falling) gains in their off years. (a 65% fall in the 2004-05 tests.)
Part of the current gain for Lancaster 5th grade results from starting at a low baseline. On percent passing, we fell one percent last year, from 52% passing to 51% passing, at the same time the rest of the state was gaining from 75% to 81% passing. So our relative score fell from 69% (of the state value) to 62% of that value, for a minus ten percent result. Negative gains are reported as a "fall".
Even now, the district is gloating about a passing rate of roughly 66% … which is up 30% over 2005's 51% passing rate. But 66% is still well below the state passing rate of 80% passing. Comparing to the state, 66/80 is, for 2006, about 82%, up from 2005's 62%. This is a 20% gain. It's a great gain but it is not exorbitant; it shows better passing rates, but rates that still are about 20% below "ordinary" for Texas 5th Graders.
TEA reports a significant number of students in all grades who fall short of standards during the first administration of TAKS tests nevertheless prove their ability to pass on the second or third attempt. It's possible the Lancaster 5th graders will continue to gain against state averages as later results are accumulated.
Extraordinary!
March 5th, Superintendent Lewis presented preliminary results on 3rd and 5th grade reading scores on the Texas mandated TAKS tests.
The preliminary results reported that Monday on 3rd grade reading scores indicate an overall increase of roughly 10% over last years’ scores.
This is the second year in a row of extraordinary gains on 3rd grade reading scores for the Lancaster ISD.
In a sample of 11 districts around Dallas in the Texas Educational Region 10 over the past 12 years, the ordinary (both median and mean) change of scores on this TAKS (formerly TASS) indicator has fallen year to year by about 2%. For only those year-to-year comparisons where districts have shown a gain against all other Texas districts tested, the median gain is 2% and the mean is 4%. No other district sampled since 1996 has posted more than a 10% year-to-year gain in 3rd grade reading, and only one district in this sample, going back to 1994, showed a greater gain than Lancaster '06. That district was Crandall ISD in school year ending 1996.
Well, except for Wilmer-Hutchins.
In 2001, the Wilmer-Hutchins district posted 17% year-to-year-gains for 3rd grade reading. 2001 was a year when state scores for reading in that grade were down by 2%.
The Wilmer Hutchins results were later proven to be fraudulent. Too Good to Be True.
(WH 2001 stories, for the newcomers, can be found here: initial elation --- http://www.clipfile.org/2002/04/28/566/
followed by the sade aftermath WH 2004 http://www.clipfile.org/2004/08/22/701/
Good stuff from DMN's education reporter, Josh Benton.)
The district with dramatic gains that have never been challenged was Crandall. This comparatively small district, due East of Lancaster, ranged from 21.9% gains to 16.3% losses in the 12 years sampled. Small absolute changes in the numbers of 3rd graders passing the tests had outsized impact on their statistics. In 1997, following their extraordinary gains, the gain has scaled back to 3.3% and by 1998 Crandall actually saw comparative scores fall by 10.7% . See more about little Cradndall ISD at http://www.crandall-isd.net/
Anyhow, moving on from the historically fraudulent to the currently statistically extraordinary:
Lancaster ISD’s 2006 3rd grade reading passing percentage scores gained by an (extraordinary!) 12.7% over 2005. This, in a year where the state scores overall were down by 7.7%, indicating the 2006 TAKS test for 3rd graders was more difficult -- even unusually more difficult -- than in 2005.
Every district sampled between 1994 and 2006 saw 3rd Grade reading gains fall off sharply after any double-digit gain. 2001 gains of 17.9% in Wilmer-Hutchins were followed by losses of 36.4%. This fall is a common statistical pattern known, technically, as “regression to the mean.”. Random chance may produce dramatic changes in any measure; but when those changes are purely due to chance they are typically offset in subsequent measures. Lancaster will, if the results hold up, be the first district in the area to show back-to-back, double-digit, gains on the 3rd grade reading measure. The extraordinary statistics, in turn, indicate extraordinary changes in instructional, or testing, procedures.
Friday, the Texas Education Agency released overall 3rd and 5th AEIS reading 2007 scores for all districts. Statewide, reading scores among 3rd graders were unchanged. So it’s reasonable to infer the TAKS test this year is no harder or easier than last year. LISD's preliminary reports of gains on this test indicate an advance not only year to year, but in comparison to neighboring districts.
I calulate “Gains”, for the purposes of analysis, by comparing the local district’s passing percentage on an AEIS measure to the state’s passing percentage on that same measure. The difference of the ratio of current year’s comparison to the prior year, from the expected value of 1, is reported as a gain if greater than 1 or a fall if less than 1. Readers are invited to replicate this analysis by obtaining copies of the AEIS reports for area school districts at
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/.
Or e-mail me for copies of the sampled data in MS-Excel format.
March 5th, Superintendent Lewis presented preliminary results on 3rd and 5th grade reading scores on the Texas mandated TAKS tests.
The preliminary results reported that Monday on 3rd grade reading scores indicate an overall increase of roughly 10% over last years’ scores.
This is the second year in a row of extraordinary gains on 3rd grade reading scores for the Lancaster ISD.
In a sample of 11 districts around Dallas in the Texas Educational Region 10 over the past 12 years, the ordinary (both median and mean) change of scores on this TAKS (formerly TASS) indicator has fallen year to year by about 2%. For only those year-to-year comparisons where districts have shown a gain against all other Texas districts tested, the median gain is 2% and the mean is 4%. No other district sampled since 1996 has posted more than a 10% year-to-year gain in 3rd grade reading, and only one district in this sample, going back to 1994, showed a greater gain than Lancaster '06. That district was Crandall ISD in school year ending 1996.
Well, except for Wilmer-Hutchins.
In 2001, the Wilmer-Hutchins district posted 17% year-to-year-gains for 3rd grade reading. 2001 was a year when state scores for reading in that grade were down by 2%.
The Wilmer Hutchins results were later proven to be fraudulent. Too Good to Be True.
(WH 2001 stories, for the newcomers, can be found here: initial elation --- http://www.clipfile.org/2002/04/28/566/
followed by the sade aftermath WH 2004 http://www.clipfile.org/2004/08/22/701/
Good stuff from DMN's education reporter, Josh Benton.)
The district with dramatic gains that have never been challenged was Crandall. This comparatively small district, due East of Lancaster, ranged from 21.9% gains to 16.3% losses in the 12 years sampled. Small absolute changes in the numbers of 3rd graders passing the tests had outsized impact on their statistics. In 1997, following their extraordinary gains, the gain has scaled back to 3.3% and by 1998 Crandall actually saw comparative scores fall by 10.7% . See more about little Cradndall ISD at http://www.crandall-isd.net/
Anyhow, moving on from the historically fraudulent to the currently statistically extraordinary:
Lancaster ISD’s 2006 3rd grade reading passing percentage scores gained by an (extraordinary!) 12.7% over 2005. This, in a year where the state scores overall were down by 7.7%, indicating the 2006 TAKS test for 3rd graders was more difficult -- even unusually more difficult -- than in 2005.
Every district sampled between 1994 and 2006 saw 3rd Grade reading gains fall off sharply after any double-digit gain. 2001 gains of 17.9% in Wilmer-Hutchins were followed by losses of 36.4%. This fall is a common statistical pattern known, technically, as “regression to the mean.”. Random chance may produce dramatic changes in any measure; but when those changes are purely due to chance they are typically offset in subsequent measures. Lancaster will, if the results hold up, be the first district in the area to show back-to-back, double-digit, gains on the 3rd grade reading measure. The extraordinary statistics, in turn, indicate extraordinary changes in instructional, or testing, procedures.
Friday, the Texas Education Agency released overall 3rd and 5th AEIS reading 2007 scores for all districts. Statewide, reading scores among 3rd graders were unchanged. So it’s reasonable to infer the TAKS test this year is no harder or easier than last year. LISD's preliminary reports of gains on this test indicate an advance not only year to year, but in comparison to neighboring districts.
I calulate “Gains”, for the purposes of analysis, by comparing the local district’s passing percentage on an AEIS measure to the state’s passing percentage on that same measure. The difference of the ratio of current year’s comparison to the prior year, from the expected value of 1, is reported as a gain if greater than 1 or a fall if less than 1. Readers are invited to replicate this analysis by obtaining copies of the AEIS reports for area school districts at
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/.
Or e-mail me for copies of the sampled data in MS-Excel format.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
The Amazing Karnak!
Remember how Johnny Carson used to come to his desk wearing a giant turban, place an envelope to his head, and announce the answer to questions that had not yet been read out? Let's play. I'll predict the answer. I'll even predict the question. And come late Monday night and the end of the LISD Board of Trustees hearing on the "proposed" May bond election, we'll see how good my magic turban is.
Answer: Fifty Cents.
Question: How high with the district propose to raise I&S tax rates?
(The secret -- Larry Lewis ALWAYS proposes to raise I&S to the ultimate limits. After than, he decides how much funding the maximum generates. And finally, he attempts to justify the borrowing with projects that seem to match the available funds.)
Answer: A tax cut.
Question: Will the increase in taxes be presented to the public as an increase or as a reduction -- a tax cut?
(The secret -- the Texas Legislature has forced districts to cut M&O tax rates. Maintenance and Operating funds are now increasingly coming to localities from the state -- with strings attached. But since the M&O will be down MORE than the I&S rates the local district controls will be UP, the TOTAL tax projected for next year, even with a big bond, will be presented as a tax cut. BONUS, the "spin" from the district will be such that a "yes" vote on the bonds will be NEEDED to get the tax cut.)
Answer: A school bus, "technology", and maintenance at the old stadium.
Question: What assets will the district propose to finance with new bonds that have a useful life much less than the length of the bonds.
(No secret -- just more shenanigans from our District.)
Answer: Another bus, even more technology, and a police car.
Question: What projected purchases will STILL be in the bond proposals for 2007 that have been purchased -- TWICE -- in 2006 with 2004 bond funds and windfall tax recoveries from sale of foreclosed real estate?
Answer: More than 20.
Question: How many years will the district propose to draw out payments for assets that fully depreciate in less than one decade?
Remember how Johnny Carson used to come to his desk wearing a giant turban, place an envelope to his head, and announce the answer to questions that had not yet been read out? Let's play. I'll predict the answer. I'll even predict the question. And come late Monday night and the end of the LISD Board of Trustees hearing on the "proposed" May bond election, we'll see how good my magic turban is.
Answer: Fifty Cents.
Question: How high with the district propose to raise I&S tax rates?
(The secret -- Larry Lewis ALWAYS proposes to raise I&S to the ultimate limits. After than, he decides how much funding the maximum generates. And finally, he attempts to justify the borrowing with projects that seem to match the available funds.)
Answer: A tax cut.
Question: Will the increase in taxes be presented to the public as an increase or as a reduction -- a tax cut?
(The secret -- the Texas Legislature has forced districts to cut M&O tax rates. Maintenance and Operating funds are now increasingly coming to localities from the state -- with strings attached. But since the M&O will be down MORE than the I&S rates the local district controls will be UP, the TOTAL tax projected for next year, even with a big bond, will be presented as a tax cut. BONUS, the "spin" from the district will be such that a "yes" vote on the bonds will be NEEDED to get the tax cut.)
Answer: A school bus, "technology", and maintenance at the old stadium.
Question: What assets will the district propose to finance with new bonds that have a useful life much less than the length of the bonds.
(No secret -- just more shenanigans from our District.)
Answer: Another bus, even more technology, and a police car.
Question: What projected purchases will STILL be in the bond proposals for 2007 that have been purchased -- TWICE -- in 2006 with 2004 bond funds and windfall tax recoveries from sale of foreclosed real estate?
Answer: More than 20.
Question: How many years will the district propose to draw out payments for assets that fully depreciate in less than one decade?
Friday, March 02, 2007
New Lancaster School project faces challenges.
The Monday night before the 7 November 2006 school bond referendum, the Lancaster ISD Board of Trustees approved a proposal to purchase land for a new elementary school. At the time, Superintendent Larry Lewis spoke of the reduction in price of the site -- from $568,000 to $222,000 -- and of his hopes that the passage of that upcoming bond would allow the new elementary school to be opened within two years -- by 2008.
The following Tuesday, voters dashed those hopes. The 215 Million dollar proposal was defeated (52% / 48% ). This was the second such defeat for LISD proposals last year. The previous May, voters similarly rejected a $93 Million referendum.
Nevertheless, district officials continued with the purchase of ten acres for a new school site. Remaining funds from the recent 2004 bond projects were used, as authorized by the Board, to secure a 10+ acre block of land in the North Lancaster "Boardwalk" development. Final agreements to transfer the property were filed in Dallas County Court records on 22 January 2007. Board President Nanette Vick signed for the district, and Steve Topletz represented the original Boardwalk developers.
A detailed review of those agreements indicates that delays, expenses, and risks will continue to thwart the district's hopes for a quick infusion of new seats for their growing population of new students.
First, neither the developer nor the district can develop the site as platted until the City of Lancaster completes three major and long delayed tasks. First, a "Stormwater Master Plan" must be approved. After that, the city must secure the necessary easements and land acquisitions of its own to channel the stormwater as planned. Finally, the city's contractors must complete construction of the culverts, aqueducts, and canals specified. The 2004 plat for Boardwalk Phase Three shows two distinct 27-inch diameter "Reinforced Concrete Pipe" (RCP) systems leading from Boardwalk. One starts from collection points in the residential neighborhood, and the other from the proposed school site. The two RCP systems then cross two different pieces of property owned by individuals completely unaffiliated with the Topletz and Andante groups. The city has been attempting to buy these residential lots an incorporate the stormwater system into a "Hike and Bike" system of nature trails. But, a pretty trail would be simply one more of the city's amenities. A system to control the floods running off newly paved School Site parking lots, to prevent another "Ten Mile Creek" disaster, that's vital. Superintendent Lewis apparently believed the city had, in fact, purchased the lots in question during his November 7th discussions with the Board of Trustees. At the time stated that an additional three acres, adjacent to the purchased site, would be donated to the LISD. But the city does not own such property to support the Dr Lewis’s expected donation. As of now the two families living in residences west of Boardwalk have NOT sold either the lots, or easements across their lots, to the city, the developer, or the district. Stormwater runoff from Boardwalk Phase 3 can not be controlled. And no construction of any sort in Phase 3 is, as of yet, permitted.
A second indication of the doubts of both the developer and the district is the inclusion of this "buy back" provision in the Use Restrictions of the agreement:
"Developer shall have the right to re-purchase the School Site for the net Purchase Price as stated in the Contract if construction of the elementary school building has not commenced on the School Site within five (5) years from the date the Contract closes and title to the School Site is conveyed to LISD."
Buy back agreements between government agencies and developers are hardly uncommon. But for the Boardwalk school agreeement, the buy back locks in the developer’s price of land at 2006 (pre-stormwater master plan) values . Should the Lancaster district fail to develop the site, they can't in turn sell it to any other buyer for any other purpose or for any other price. Or, if such a deal is proposed, Mr Topletz can simply exercise his option to repurchase the site at the 2006 price and "flip" the acreage to the new buyer, pocketing any potential gains for himself. This would be particularly advantages to a developer if the city drags out the RCP construction projects for approximately 4 years. When and if stormwater projects, or similar UNT South Dallas Campus projects, enhance the value of the Boardwalk development, the developer can enjoy the interest he's earned on the sale price, refund that price to LISD, and have his land and projects right back, unchanged.
Should the district pressure the city to provide stormwater control, and begin school construction before the Phase 3 residential construction gets underway, then a third challenging feature of this agreement comes into play. From page 3:
"In the event that LISD elects to build the school on the School Site prior to the Developer developing the adjoining property, then LISD shall be responsible for constructing the Infrastructure Work. "
Estimates attached to the agreement by the Engineering Firm Jones and Boyd indicate that the Infrastructure costs would exceed half a million dollars, over and above the purchase price.
It would also leave the school building sitting isolated by several city blocks from the nearest homes in Boardwalk (phase 2) or Meadowview. But after the power, water, sewer and storm control structures were installed by the school district, the developer would be able to pave his streets in the new development fairly quickly.
An indication of the timeline can be determined by the rate of homesales in Boardwalk phase 2. This section of the development, which contains some 180 lots, just opened this fall. At present, slower, turnover rates this provides an inventory of lots sufficient for another year and a half. Meanwhile comparable developments with stormwater and infrastructure already in place surround the Boardwalk sites along Wintergreen Road and Houston School. One of the existing homebuilders in Boardwalk, Horizon Homes, has already announced they are pulling out from the Boardwalk project. The other, K Hovnanian, is reportedly considering it. The immediate prospect of Phase 3 meeting the school district's projected timeline of 2008 seem bleak.
Meanwhile, the district has announced during Martin Luther King day celebrations, and elsewhere, that they are planning to hold a third bond referendum in May, 2007. Estimated to exceed 140 million dollars, the new referendum breaks up district proposals into three or more separate propositions, the largest portions of each will include funding for the -- politically popular -- elementary school expansions, new site acquisitions, and new construction. If the bond passes and several million becomes available to buy other land at other sites, those hoping for a new school in the Boardwalk, Meadowview, and Ames Meadow environs are likely to be extremely disappointed.
[cross-posted to Pegasus News -- www.pegnews.com/Lancaster]
The Monday night before the 7 November 2006 school bond referendum, the Lancaster ISD Board of Trustees approved a proposal to purchase land for a new elementary school. At the time, Superintendent Larry Lewis spoke of the reduction in price of the site -- from $568,000 to $222,000 -- and of his hopes that the passage of that upcoming bond would allow the new elementary school to be opened within two years -- by 2008.
The following Tuesday, voters dashed those hopes. The 215 Million dollar proposal was defeated (52% / 48% ). This was the second such defeat for LISD proposals last year. The previous May, voters similarly rejected a $93 Million referendum.
Nevertheless, district officials continued with the purchase of ten acres for a new school site. Remaining funds from the recent 2004 bond projects were used, as authorized by the Board, to secure a 10+ acre block of land in the North Lancaster "Boardwalk" development. Final agreements to transfer the property were filed in Dallas County Court records on 22 January 2007. Board President Nanette Vick signed for the district, and Steve Topletz represented the original Boardwalk developers.
A detailed review of those agreements indicates that delays, expenses, and risks will continue to thwart the district's hopes for a quick infusion of new seats for their growing population of new students.
First, neither the developer nor the district can develop the site as platted until the City of Lancaster completes three major and long delayed tasks. First, a "Stormwater Master Plan" must be approved. After that, the city must secure the necessary easements and land acquisitions of its own to channel the stormwater as planned. Finally, the city's contractors must complete construction of the culverts, aqueducts, and canals specified. The 2004 plat for Boardwalk Phase Three shows two distinct 27-inch diameter "Reinforced Concrete Pipe" (RCP) systems leading from Boardwalk. One starts from collection points in the residential neighborhood, and the other from the proposed school site. The two RCP systems then cross two different pieces of property owned by individuals completely unaffiliated with the Topletz and Andante groups. The city has been attempting to buy these residential lots an incorporate the stormwater system into a "Hike and Bike" system of nature trails. But, a pretty trail would be simply one more of the city's amenities. A system to control the floods running off newly paved School Site parking lots, to prevent another "Ten Mile Creek" disaster, that's vital. Superintendent Lewis apparently believed the city had, in fact, purchased the lots in question during his November 7th discussions with the Board of Trustees. At the time stated that an additional three acres, adjacent to the purchased site, would be donated to the LISD. But the city does not own such property to support the Dr Lewis’s expected donation. As of now the two families living in residences west of Boardwalk have NOT sold either the lots, or easements across their lots, to the city, the developer, or the district. Stormwater runoff from Boardwalk Phase 3 can not be controlled. And no construction of any sort in Phase 3 is, as of yet, permitted.
A second indication of the doubts of both the developer and the district is the inclusion of this "buy back" provision in the Use Restrictions of the agreement:
"Developer shall have the right to re-purchase the School Site for the net Purchase Price as stated in the Contract if construction of the elementary school building has not commenced on the School Site within five (5) years from the date the Contract closes and title to the School Site is conveyed to LISD."
Buy back agreements between government agencies and developers are hardly uncommon. But for the Boardwalk school agreeement, the buy back locks in the developer’s price of land at 2006 (pre-stormwater master plan) values . Should the Lancaster district fail to develop the site, they can't in turn sell it to any other buyer for any other purpose or for any other price. Or, if such a deal is proposed, Mr Topletz can simply exercise his option to repurchase the site at the 2006 price and "flip" the acreage to the new buyer, pocketing any potential gains for himself. This would be particularly advantages to a developer if the city drags out the RCP construction projects for approximately 4 years. When and if stormwater projects, or similar UNT South Dallas Campus projects, enhance the value of the Boardwalk development, the developer can enjoy the interest he's earned on the sale price, refund that price to LISD, and have his land and projects right back, unchanged.
Should the district pressure the city to provide stormwater control, and begin school construction before the Phase 3 residential construction gets underway, then a third challenging feature of this agreement comes into play. From page 3:
"In the event that LISD elects to build the school on the School Site prior to the Developer developing the adjoining property, then LISD shall be responsible for constructing the Infrastructure Work. "
Estimates attached to the agreement by the Engineering Firm Jones and Boyd indicate that the Infrastructure costs would exceed half a million dollars, over and above the purchase price.
It would also leave the school building sitting isolated by several city blocks from the nearest homes in Boardwalk (phase 2) or Meadowview. But after the power, water, sewer and storm control structures were installed by the school district, the developer would be able to pave his streets in the new development fairly quickly.
An indication of the timeline can be determined by the rate of homesales in Boardwalk phase 2. This section of the development, which contains some 180 lots, just opened this fall. At present, slower, turnover rates this provides an inventory of lots sufficient for another year and a half. Meanwhile comparable developments with stormwater and infrastructure already in place surround the Boardwalk sites along Wintergreen Road and Houston School. One of the existing homebuilders in Boardwalk, Horizon Homes, has already announced they are pulling out from the Boardwalk project. The other, K Hovnanian, is reportedly considering it. The immediate prospect of Phase 3 meeting the school district's projected timeline of 2008 seem bleak.
Meanwhile, the district has announced during Martin Luther King day celebrations, and elsewhere, that they are planning to hold a third bond referendum in May, 2007. Estimated to exceed 140 million dollars, the new referendum breaks up district proposals into three or more separate propositions, the largest portions of each will include funding for the -- politically popular -- elementary school expansions, new site acquisitions, and new construction. If the bond passes and several million becomes available to buy other land at other sites, those hoping for a new school in the Boardwalk, Meadowview, and Ames Meadow environs are likely to be extremely disappointed.
[cross-posted to Pegasus News -- www.pegnews.com/Lancaster]
OVERDUE!
Lancaster ISD accountants and auditors have failed to file required annual financial reports with the Texas Education Agency on time, or within the 30-day “grace period” after the January deadline. A senior official with TEA confirms that the state agency has not received filings. However, the district has, according to that source, last week filed a request for an extension. However, the TEA school finance office advised that their agency has no authority to issue either extentions or waivers regarding this legislative requirement. Another source in the Region Ten schools support offices confirms that failure to file these reports is a “serious problem” for the Lancaster District.
LISD’s most recent CFO, Eugene Smith, was on record as present for public meetings with the Board of Trustees as late as December 18th 2006. But early this year, trustees quietly confided to constituents that the CFO had been terminated. The confusion following the departure of the CFO contributes to the lateness of the required reports.
The annual financial reports form the basis for the TEA’s “FIRST” rankings, (the “Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas”). The state agency assigns a “Substandard” rating for any districts failing to file within a month after the January deadline.
In mid-February TEA began posting reports online from other districts that had filed on time. On Februay 16th, an Open Records Request for the Fiscal-Year 2006 was filed with LISD. It was the week following that the district requested the extension from TEA.
But November,2006, the Trustees were still voting, unanimously, to approve financial reports as submitted by CFO Smith.
And on December 18, 2006, with Eugene Smith present, the Trustees voted to approve a 4% increase in salary for the officer ultimately responsible, Superintendent Larry D. Lewis.
Lancaster ISD accountants and auditors have failed to file required annual financial reports with the Texas Education Agency on time, or within the 30-day “grace period” after the January deadline. A senior official with TEA confirms that the state agency has not received filings. However, the district has, according to that source, last week filed a request for an extension. However, the TEA school finance office advised that their agency has no authority to issue either extentions or waivers regarding this legislative requirement. Another source in the Region Ten schools support offices confirms that failure to file these reports is a “serious problem” for the Lancaster District.
LISD’s most recent CFO, Eugene Smith, was on record as present for public meetings with the Board of Trustees as late as December 18th 2006. But early this year, trustees quietly confided to constituents that the CFO had been terminated. The confusion following the departure of the CFO contributes to the lateness of the required reports.
The annual financial reports form the basis for the TEA’s “FIRST” rankings, (the “Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas”). The state agency assigns a “Substandard” rating for any districts failing to file within a month after the January deadline.
In mid-February TEA began posting reports online from other districts that had filed on time. On Februay 16th, an Open Records Request for the Fiscal-Year 2006 was filed with LISD. It was the week following that the district requested the extension from TEA.
But November,2006, the Trustees were still voting, unanimously, to approve financial reports as submitted by CFO Smith.
And on December 18, 2006, with Eugene Smith present, the Trustees voted to approve a 4% increase in salary for the officer ultimately responsible, Superintendent Larry D. Lewis.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Only one indicator.
The FIRST rating the Lancaster ISD failed for fiscal year ending 2005 asked the question:
Did The Comparisons Of PEIMS Data To Like Information In Annual Financial Report Result In An Aggregate Variance Of Less Than 4 Percent Of Expenditures Per Fund Type ?
This is also termed the "Data Quality Measure". The PEIMS data is stuff like daily average attendance, teacher-student ratios, -- general nuts-and-bolts data about how many whos are where doing which whats. If the sum of all the numbers in all the columns equals the sum of all the numbers in every row, then the "variance" would be zero. Generally, in an imperfect world, the numbers do NOT add up, exactly. But within 4% or so, they should.
Only 14 districts out of over one thousand failed this test in fiscal year 2005. One district that failed was our neighbor Irving. The Irving ISD, which like Lancaster also earned a "Superior Achievement" rating by failing only this one indicator, posted an aggregate variance of 13.2%.
The North Forest ISD earned an "Above Standard" financial rating .. which is down one notch from "Superior". (This lower ranking was because they failed two additional indicators.) They failed the PEIMS data quality question with a variance of 10.9%
Quinlan ISD faced a "Substandard" Rating, with 6 negative indicators, one of which was PEIMS data quality variance of 8.7%.
Valentine ISD eked out a marginal "Standard" Rating with 5 negative indicators, and PEIMS data quality variance of just under 5%.
Thirteen, eleven, almost nine, not quite five ... anybody care to guess what the Wilmer Hutchins district reported as a variance in fiscal 2005? How about 100% ? That's amazing. Every data element they reported was in variance. 100% variance. Can it get any worse?
Well, the LANCASTER ISD with its "Superior Achievement" ranking managed to fail the PEIMS data quality indicator with a 121% variance.
The Lancaster ISD had more variance than they had data.
And this is the second FIRST ranking year, the second fiscal year, in a row where the PEIMS data quality has been at unaccepable variance. In fiscal year 2004 the variance was 107%.
Now, in 2003 -- the last fiscal year before Dr Larry Lewis arrived, the variance was only 0.49%. That's like about one-tenth the variance allowed by FIRST standards.
The same staffer, Mr Greg Long, has held the post of PEIMS expert since before 2003 and now since Financial Officer Eugene Smith has come and gone. One might think that Greg Long would know, by now, how to keep his data quality within tolerance. If, that is, he were allowed to.
But for the last two years, while Greg Long has fallen lower and lower on the Lancaster Fianance Office pecking order, the PEIMS data quality has gotten worse and worse.
Hey, Mr Long, if you're reading, would you care to comment?
The FIRST rating the Lancaster ISD failed for fiscal year ending 2005 asked the question:
Did The Comparisons Of PEIMS Data To Like Information In Annual Financial Report Result In An Aggregate Variance Of Less Than 4 Percent Of Expenditures Per Fund Type ?
This is also termed the "Data Quality Measure". The PEIMS data is stuff like daily average attendance, teacher-student ratios, -- general nuts-and-bolts data about how many whos are where doing which whats. If the sum of all the numbers in all the columns equals the sum of all the numbers in every row, then the "variance" would be zero. Generally, in an imperfect world, the numbers do NOT add up, exactly. But within 4% or so, they should.
Only 14 districts out of over one thousand failed this test in fiscal year 2005. One district that failed was our neighbor Irving. The Irving ISD, which like Lancaster also earned a "Superior Achievement" rating by failing only this one indicator, posted an aggregate variance of 13.2%.
The North Forest ISD earned an "Above Standard" financial rating .. which is down one notch from "Superior". (This lower ranking was because they failed two additional indicators.) They failed the PEIMS data quality question with a variance of 10.9%
Quinlan ISD faced a "Substandard" Rating, with 6 negative indicators, one of which was PEIMS data quality variance of 8.7%.
Valentine ISD eked out a marginal "Standard" Rating with 5 negative indicators, and PEIMS data quality variance of just under 5%.
Thirteen, eleven, almost nine, not quite five ... anybody care to guess what the Wilmer Hutchins district reported as a variance in fiscal 2005? How about 100% ? That's amazing. Every data element they reported was in variance. 100% variance. Can it get any worse?
Well, the LANCASTER ISD with its "Superior Achievement" ranking managed to fail the PEIMS data quality indicator with a 121% variance.
The Lancaster ISD had more variance than they had data.
And this is the second FIRST ranking year, the second fiscal year, in a row where the PEIMS data quality has been at unaccepable variance. In fiscal year 2004 the variance was 107%.
Now, in 2003 -- the last fiscal year before Dr Larry Lewis arrived, the variance was only 0.49%. That's like about one-tenth the variance allowed by FIRST standards.
The same staffer, Mr Greg Long, has held the post of PEIMS expert since before 2003 and now since Financial Officer Eugene Smith has come and gone. One might think that Greg Long would know, by now, how to keep his data quality within tolerance. If, that is, he were allowed to.
But for the last two years, while Greg Long has fallen lower and lower on the Lancaster Fianance Office pecking order, the PEIMS data quality has gotten worse and worse.
Hey, Mr Long, if you're reading, would you care to comment?
FIRST Rating
Lancaster ISD earned a "Superior Achievement" rating in the "Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas (FIRST)" scores for fiscal year ending 2005.
We only failed one, of twenty-one, "indicators" or tests.
Now, one test failed can be enough to fail the entire district and earn a "Substandard" rating. It depends on the indicator.
For instance, the Progresso ISD failed with only one "no". So did Port Arthur ISD.
The single indicator failed asked the question:
Was The Annual Financial Report Filed Within One Month After November 27th or January 28th Deadline Depending Upon The District's Fiscal Year End Date?
A district that files its Annual reports more than thirty days after the deadline is in what Region Ten analysts carefully refer to as "serious trouble".
The deadline for fiscal year ending 2006 is coming up fast. Might be a good question for citizens to ask at the next school board meeting. Did we file on time?
Lancaster ISD earned a "Superior Achievement" rating in the "Financial Integrity Rating System of Texas (FIRST)" scores for fiscal year ending 2005.
We only failed one, of twenty-one, "indicators" or tests.
Now, one test failed can be enough to fail the entire district and earn a "Substandard" rating. It depends on the indicator.
For instance, the Progresso ISD failed with only one "no". So did Port Arthur ISD.
The single indicator failed asked the question:
Was The Annual Financial Report Filed Within One Month After November 27th or January 28th Deadline Depending Upon The District's Fiscal Year End Date?
A district that files its Annual reports more than thirty days after the deadline is in what Region Ten analysts carefully refer to as "serious trouble".
The deadline for fiscal year ending 2006 is coming up fast. Might be a good question for citizens to ask at the next school board meeting. Did we file on time?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Voting.
Now, this probably is NOT enough to get a person fired from his job.
Just because Dallas County Voter ID #03502304 belongs to a person falsely claiming to live at:
500 Rolling Hills Place,
Lancaster, TX 75146
in October of 2006, and who voted in the November 2006 School Bond Referendum, even though he has ACTUALLY resided, since November 2005, at:
2640 Waterfront Drive
Grand Prairie TX 75054
in TARRANT COUNTY...
It doesn't mean the Lancaster School district will fire him.
After all, the district needed every vote it could get, last bond election. Even the illegal ones. Even though it lost. It won't fire any employee, even the CFO, for this sort of minor fraud.
Now, in the MAY 2006 election, which also was a squeaker where every vote was absolutely crucial -- and where Dallas voter # 03502304 might have voted,
and didn't...
THAT might have caused a bit of heartburn in the Superintendent's office.
Probably not enough to get a person fired, though.
Can't help wondering what the actual disagreement might have been.
Now, this probably is NOT enough to get a person fired from his job.
Just because Dallas County Voter ID #03502304 belongs to a person falsely claiming to live at:
500 Rolling Hills Place,
Lancaster, TX 75146
in October of 2006, and who voted in the November 2006 School Bond Referendum, even though he has ACTUALLY resided, since November 2005, at:
2640 Waterfront Drive
Grand Prairie TX 75054
in TARRANT COUNTY...
It doesn't mean the Lancaster School district will fire him.
After all, the district needed every vote it could get, last bond election. Even the illegal ones. Even though it lost. It won't fire any employee, even the CFO, for this sort of minor fraud.
Now, in the MAY 2006 election, which also was a squeaker where every vote was absolutely crucial -- and where Dallas voter # 03502304 might have voted,
and didn't...
THAT might have caused a bit of heartburn in the Superintendent's office.
Probably not enough to get a person fired, though.
Can't help wondering what the actual disagreement might have been.
The Changing LISD Pecking Order
Just for fun let's assume that the page position of the name in an directory listing denotes the importance of that person.
If so, it's interesting to see the rise and fall of various players in the LISD Financial Office. The history of this empire is
perserved on the "Wayback Machine" -- an archive of internet webpages.
In April of 2003, Superintendent Bill Ward has gone, Dr Larry Lewis has not yet arrived.A man named Thomas Poore is serving as "Acting Superintendent". And the Finance Office is, in that long ago time, called the Business Operations Department. The CFO was Ted Warren. The contact list, and our assumed ranking of next-most-important vice-officers, deputies, assistants and flunkies, runs
Scott Northcutt Coordinator for Business Services
Greg Long Coordinator for PEIMS
Tina Hansen Business Manager
Sue Hayes Payroll Manager
Now, let's set the Wayback Machine to June of 2003, Dr Lewis arrives on the Wayback radar. Thomas Poore is now "deputy" superintendent. The names and rankings in the Business Operations Department are unchanged.
In October 2003, Eugene Young replaced Thomas Poore as deputy superintendent and Scott Northcutt has disappeared from the Business Operations Department. The ranking remains Warren, Long, Hansen and Hayes.
In December 2003 Eugene Young picked up a assistant deputy vice-superintendent named Dr. Sylvia Hornback. And in the Business Office Ted Warren added a most- junior aide named Pat Wade. Ms Wade was responsible for "Benefits and Insurance". The hierarchy then ran Warren, Long, Hansen, Hayes and Wade.
This pecking order persisted in February 2004, April of 2004 and June of 2004
By August Dr Hornback had disappeared. Ted Warren was still hanging on, though his page position was suddenly elevated to co-equal Eugene Young's. Mr Warren also got his original, now second, mention of the page under the Business Operations listing. And the Business Operations hierarchy still ran Warren, Long, Hansen, Hayes and Wade.
This 5-person office ranking continued inMarch 2005.
By April 2005 Ted Warren had fallen in grace and was no longer co-equal Eugene Young. He did still appear as head of the Business Office and the Warren, Long, Hansen, Hayes and Wade pecking order continued.
In May 2005 Ted Warren had fallen completely off the website. The new Chief Financial Officer, Eugene Smith, appeared at the top of th Business Office listing. The 5-person ranking now ran Smith, Long, Hansen, Hayes and Wade. This pecking order lasted thru June.
In October 2005 the Business Office was reorganized as the "Office of the Chief Financial Officer" . CFO Eugene P Smith acquired a "financial manager" , Cheryl Peoples, and a "co-ordinator of purchasing" , Phil Brasher. Pat Wade dropped off the page. The new six-person pecking order ran Smith, Peoples, Hansen, Hayes, Brasher, and Long. (I can't help wondering how Long wound up so low in the rankings.)
The O-CFO team of six persisted in May of 2006 the Office of the CFO had ballooned to a full 'team of eight". Greg Long gained back some ranking points and 4 new birds on the pecking order followed:
Eugene P. Smith Chief Financial Officer
Cheryl Peoples Financial Manager
Phil Brasher Coordinator of Purchasing
Greg Long Coordinator for PEIMS
Mandy Johnson Administrative Assistant
Jessie Armstead Accounts Payable
Randall Hoadley Financial Analyst
Wendy Ware Payroll Manager
With all the new staff on the payroll, no WONDER the O-CFO needed a payroll manager!
It ddn't last. As of winter 2006, and still today, newcomers Johnson and Hoadley have overtaken Long. Mandy Johnson has been promoted from clerk (admin assistant) to "payroll" And former payrol manager Wendy Ware has disappeared. ) Only Armstead remains for Long to peck upon. Accounts payble being, apparently, even a less-esteemed position than PEIMS attendance taking.
The current listing / ranking showing on the LISD website is:
Smith - Cheryl Peoples - Mandy Johnson -Randall Hoadley -Greg Long - PEIMS Facilitator and -Jessie Armstead - Accounts Payable
Of course, the website is behind the times. Eugene Smith is actually gone, Richard Gonzales is holding the CFO slot, and Cheryl Peoples appears be managing the actual work. The district is hiring but not finance types --only teachers, counselors and librarians.
A new "highly qualified" CFO is not, it appears, being sought.
It would not appear to be an attractive position. From May 2005 to December 2006 -- 19 months or so?
It may be interesting to look into how Eugene Smith wound up moving to Lancaster from previous postings -- which appear to have been in Detroit.But we'll save that for another day.
Just for fun let's assume that the page position of the name in an directory listing denotes the importance of that person.
If so, it's interesting to see the rise and fall of various players in the LISD Financial Office. The history of this empire is
perserved on the "Wayback Machine" -- an archive of internet webpages.
In April of 2003, Superintendent Bill Ward has gone, Dr Larry Lewis has not yet arrived.A man named Thomas Poore is serving as "Acting Superintendent". And the Finance Office is, in that long ago time, called the Business Operations Department. The CFO was Ted Warren. The contact list, and our assumed ranking of next-most-important vice-officers, deputies, assistants and flunkies, runs
Scott Northcutt Coordinator for Business Services
Greg Long Coordinator for PEIMS
Tina Hansen Business Manager
Sue Hayes Payroll Manager
Now, let's set the Wayback Machine to June of 2003, Dr Lewis arrives on the Wayback radar. Thomas Poore is now "deputy" superintendent. The names and rankings in the Business Operations Department are unchanged.
In October 2003, Eugene Young replaced Thomas Poore as deputy superintendent and Scott Northcutt has disappeared from the Business Operations Department. The ranking remains Warren, Long, Hansen and Hayes.
In December 2003 Eugene Young picked up a assistant deputy vice-superintendent named Dr. Sylvia Hornback. And in the Business Office Ted Warren added a most- junior aide named Pat Wade. Ms Wade was responsible for "Benefits and Insurance". The hierarchy then ran Warren, Long, Hansen, Hayes and Wade.
This pecking order persisted in February 2004, April of 2004 and June of 2004
By August Dr Hornback had disappeared. Ted Warren was still hanging on, though his page position was suddenly elevated to co-equal Eugene Young's. Mr Warren also got his original, now second, mention of the page under the Business Operations listing. And the Business Operations hierarchy still ran Warren, Long, Hansen, Hayes and Wade.
This 5-person office ranking continued inMarch 2005.
By April 2005 Ted Warren had fallen in grace and was no longer co-equal Eugene Young. He did still appear as head of the Business Office and the Warren, Long, Hansen, Hayes and Wade pecking order continued.
In May 2005 Ted Warren had fallen completely off the website. The new Chief Financial Officer, Eugene Smith, appeared at the top of th Business Office listing. The 5-person ranking now ran Smith, Long, Hansen, Hayes and Wade. This pecking order lasted thru June.
In October 2005 the Business Office was reorganized as the "Office of the Chief Financial Officer" . CFO Eugene P Smith acquired a "financial manager" , Cheryl Peoples, and a "co-ordinator of purchasing" , Phil Brasher. Pat Wade dropped off the page. The new six-person pecking order ran Smith, Peoples, Hansen, Hayes, Brasher, and Long. (I can't help wondering how Long wound up so low in the rankings.)
The O-CFO team of six persisted in May of 2006 the Office of the CFO had ballooned to a full 'team of eight". Greg Long gained back some ranking points and 4 new birds on the pecking order followed:
Eugene P. Smith Chief Financial Officer
Cheryl Peoples Financial Manager
Phil Brasher Coordinator of Purchasing
Greg Long Coordinator for PEIMS
Mandy Johnson Administrative Assistant
Jessie Armstead Accounts Payable
Randall Hoadley Financial Analyst
Wendy Ware Payroll Manager
With all the new staff on the payroll, no WONDER the O-CFO needed a payroll manager!
It ddn't last. As of winter 2006, and still today, newcomers Johnson and Hoadley have overtaken Long. Mandy Johnson has been promoted from clerk (admin assistant) to "payroll" And former payrol manager Wendy Ware has disappeared. ) Only Armstead remains for Long to peck upon. Accounts payble being, apparently, even a less-esteemed position than PEIMS attendance taking.
The current listing / ranking showing on the LISD website is:
Smith - Cheryl Peoples - Mandy Johnson -Randall Hoadley -Greg Long - PEIMS Facilitator and -Jessie Armstead - Accounts Payable
Of course, the website is behind the times. Eugene Smith is actually gone, Richard Gonzales is holding the CFO slot, and Cheryl Peoples appears be managing the actual work. The district is hiring but not finance types --only teachers, counselors and librarians.
A new "highly qualified" CFO is not, it appears, being sought.
It would not appear to be an attractive position. From May 2005 to December 2006 -- 19 months or so?
It may be interesting to look into how Eugene Smith wound up moving to Lancaster from previous postings -- which appear to have been in Detroit.But we'll save that for another day.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Outside expert reassures Lancaster.
An "outsider" who has no particular ax to grind in Lancaster assures me via e-mail hat:
{Lancaster ISD has} " ... an Interim CFO who has been with the District and has good experience. "
and that the annually required (and overdue since 31 January)
" audit will be completed shortly"
and concludes
" at this point I do not see any issues with the rating agencies or future bond
programs. "
So any of us that worried that losing our top accountant, missing our statutory deadlines, and attempting to pretend that nothing was ever wrong might somehow lower our school systems credit rating were mistaken.
An "outsider" who has no particular ax to grind in Lancaster assures me via e-mail hat:
{Lancaster ISD has} " ... an Interim CFO who has been with the District and has good experience. "
and that the annually required (and overdue since 31 January)
" audit will be completed shortly"
and concludes
" at this point I do not see any issues with the rating agencies or future bond
programs. "
So any of us that worried that losing our top accountant, missing our statutory deadlines, and attempting to pretend that nothing was ever wrong might somehow lower our school systems credit rating were mistaken.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Missing audit reports from LISD.
Every year, (contrary to reports elsewhere) school districts have a financial audit.
LISD does it every year. It last year. happend the year before.
Happens every year. Nothing to be excited about.
What to get excited about is if it DOESN'T happen.
It didn't happen this year.
This is something districts do for themselves, either in-house or by hiring a team of outside accountants. It's not a symptom of criminal activity. It's just like Exxon or the Sierra Club or the Department of Agriculture -- all large organizations are supposed to tell the public where the money is coming from, going, and what internal controls are being used to track it all.
Lancaster ISD is no exception. The fiscal year closed on 31 August 2006. By December the audit is supposed to be complete. And public hearings on the audit hapen in January. And the report of audit itself is usually posted by the 31st of January.
As happened last year. Outside accountants from Judd, Thomas, Smith and Co. did the audit. It was published to the LancasterISD.ORG website and the Texas Education Agency's website at http://hancock.tea.state.tx.us/audit/PDFviewer.asp Last year's report was dated in December and was posted in January.
It didn't happen this year.
John Roberts at Region Ten is a little surprised to learn that. He says it could be, and I quote from our conversation, a "serious problem". He referred me to TEA itself.
Rita Chase, of the TEA audit division, says that by statute the reports are due 150 days after the close of the fiscal year. That would have been, this year, 31 January. But by tradition there is a 30 day "grace period" before the district is "in trouble." She tells me, by phone, the Lancaster ISD has not, so far, approached her with news of the CFO's sudden departure or any other problem that would require a waiver, an extention of deadlines, or other indulgence.
So, the district is two weeks away from "serious problems" and "trouble" in their audit and reporting processes.
As long at the report is produced for a public hearing, and is submitted to the approriate publishers by the end of the month, everything at LISD will continue to be just fine.
Co-incidentally, the filing deadline for LISD board of Trustee elections is only five days AFTER the deadline for filing financial reports.
Every year, (contrary to reports elsewhere) school districts have a financial audit.
LISD does it every year. It last year. happend the year before.
Happens every year. Nothing to be excited about.
What to get excited about is if it DOESN'T happen.
It didn't happen this year.
This is something districts do for themselves, either in-house or by hiring a team of outside accountants. It's not a symptom of criminal activity. It's just like Exxon or the Sierra Club or the Department of Agriculture -- all large organizations are supposed to tell the public where the money is coming from, going, and what internal controls are being used to track it all.
Lancaster ISD is no exception. The fiscal year closed on 31 August 2006. By December the audit is supposed to be complete. And public hearings on the audit hapen in January. And the report of audit itself is usually posted by the 31st of January.
As happened last year. Outside accountants from Judd, Thomas, Smith and Co. did the audit. It was published to the LancasterISD.ORG website and the Texas Education Agency's website at http://hancock.tea.state.tx.us/audit/PDFviewer.asp Last year's report was dated in December and was posted in January.
It didn't happen this year.
John Roberts at Region Ten is a little surprised to learn that. He says it could be, and I quote from our conversation, a "serious problem". He referred me to TEA itself.
Rita Chase, of the TEA audit division, says that by statute the reports are due 150 days after the close of the fiscal year. That would have been, this year, 31 January. But by tradition there is a 30 day "grace period" before the district is "in trouble." She tells me, by phone, the Lancaster ISD has not, so far, approached her with news of the CFO's sudden departure or any other problem that would require a waiver, an extention of deadlines, or other indulgence.
So, the district is two weeks away from "serious problems" and "trouble" in their audit and reporting processes.
As long at the report is produced for a public hearing, and is submitted to the approriate publishers by the end of the month, everything at LISD will continue to be just fine.
Co-incidentally, the filing deadline for LISD board of Trustee elections is only five days AFTER the deadline for filing financial reports.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Omissions
Monday night the LISD held an "open hearing" on Texas Academic Excellence Indicator System data for school year 2005-06.
I call your attention to the curious implications of the comparison data presented, regarding teacher experience -- comparing recent LISD's current data to statewide averages, and to LISD prior years', data.
But, I hear you say, Pat Sadberry didn't present any teacher experience data for the whole state, or for prior years.
True. She presented student test score comparisons to the prior year (2004-05) and to state and regional results. The student data was actually presented twice. Once as a bar chart showing raw passing percentages, compared to prior years and the statewise prior-year and current data. And the second time as a percent change in percent passing rates over the 2005 results. Such comparisons, it is implied, are so useful as to require double emphasis -- for student data.
But for TEACHER data, the Team of Eight reviewed the current year data in isolation from any comparison to any other AEIS measures, near or far, past or present.
And that has curious implications.
It happens that the data is available whether the local media, or the Team of Eight, chooses to publish or not. See here.
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/index.html
Unlike the changes to data being collected between TASS years and TAKS years, the data measures on teacher experience have been consistent for over a decade. The AEIS tables report the number, and percentage, of teachers by ethnicity and sex, by highest degree held, by years of teaching experience, and by length of term of employment with their current district.
Since 2004, when Dr Lewis arrived as superintendent, the statistic of "average years teachers experience" has declined from 8.1 years to 7.1 years. Compared to the statewide average, LISD has gone from 31% below average (for the state, average experience was 11.8 years in 2004) to 38% below current average (11.5 years) While the statewide average has held steady since 1994, year after year the average experience of Texas teachers is measured at 11-point-something; the LISD level has trended downwards -- 10.2 in '94; 9.6 in '95; 8.9; 8.7; 8.3; 7.2 ... Our
teachers routinely had have about one-third less experience than the state's average; and the trend appears to be getting worse.
Again, since 2004 ,the measure of length of service, "years in this district" statistic has declined from 4.5 years to 3.0 years. Statewide, the typical teacher has been employed by the same district for 7+ years. Our "years in district" number has declined from 42% below average in 2004 to 60% below average in 2006.
In the 2005-06 school year over 11% of LISD teachers were in their first year of the profession. Statewide, the average is 7%. LISD teachers with only 1 to 5 years of experience comprised 46% of our staffing, compared to 29% statewise. The GOOD news is, and such as it is, the trend is improving. In school year ending 2003 the percent of new teachers (0, or 1 to 5 yrs exp) was 62% in LISD compared to 36%
statewide. The statewide figure is pretty constant but the district has gotten closer to typical by 5 percentage points.
At the other end of the experience spectrum LISD is hurting. We had about 12% of our teachers reporting 20 or more years of experience in 2003 and now we have only 7% with that level of experience. Statewide, typically, about 20% of teachers have 20 or more years. The decline in the fraction of most experienced teachers in LISD is a long term trend with this measure falling steadily from 15% (only 4 or 5 percentage points below average) in the early 1990's to half that fraction last
year.
The LISD measures on "highest degree held" are roughly the same as the measures statewide. We have a slightly higher percentage of doctorates, a slightly lower percentage of masters-degree teachers, and about 2 percent points higher, (year after year after year) of those with bachelors and "no degree". Ms Sadberry points out to the Team of Eight that having no degree MEASURED isn't the same as having no degree -- she says the district wouldn't hire a teacher without proper certification.
What "no degree" means is that LISD can't figure out what the degree for a particular teacher should be. (That's ANOTHER bit of data with curious implications.) Statewide there are always about 1% of all teachers who fall into the "no degree (known)" category. For LISD the past three years, that statistic has been 4%, 3.7% and 2.4%. Again, such as it is, this is an improvement. The LISD HR shop is now only half as ignorant about our teachers' certifications as they were 3 years ago.
Teacher pay is up, since 3 years ago. We were paying starting teacher $32K, roughly the state average pay rate, in 2003 but now we pay about $40K (about $5K more (or about 13% more) than the state average. Among our most-experienced teachers pay rates have slipped. The absolute rate has increased from $52K three years ago to $55K now. But comparatively, pay rates have decreased from about 1% _more_ than state average for teachers of comparable experience to only about 0.6% -- down 0.4% -- above average. Still, it's good news that the LISD is making at least some effort to keep experienced staff.
During and after Pat Sadberry's presentation, Trustee Russ Johnson forcefully asserted his opinion that teacher experience matters. It appeared he was frustrated that the amount of detailed information being presented about the district's teachers was inadequate by his standards. Kudos, Mr Johnson.
Why is easily available data NOT being presented to the board?
Dr Lewis mentioned, last night, that when he arrived the Trustees had no real idea of the financial condition of the district. Dr Lewis reported that instead of the $800K in debt the Board mistakenly believed it was carrying, the district was, in fact, over $5 Million in the red.
Obviously Dr Lewis knows that no problem can be resolved unless the whole Team of Eight is aware of the problem, and actively seeking a solution.
The data available on teacher retention indicates the Board needs to be looking for a solution on keeping good teachers.
It's a pity the "public hearing" didn't make the issue more explicit.
Monday night the LISD held an "open hearing" on Texas Academic Excellence Indicator System data for school year 2005-06.
I call your attention to the curious implications of the comparison data presented, regarding teacher experience -- comparing recent LISD's current data to statewide averages, and to LISD prior years', data.
But, I hear you say, Pat Sadberry didn't present any teacher experience data for the whole state, or for prior years.
True. She presented student test score comparisons to the prior year (2004-05) and to state and regional results. The student data was actually presented twice. Once as a bar chart showing raw passing percentages, compared to prior years and the statewise prior-year and current data. And the second time as a percent change in percent passing rates over the 2005 results. Such comparisons, it is implied, are so useful as to require double emphasis -- for student data.
But for TEACHER data, the Team of Eight reviewed the current year data in isolation from any comparison to any other AEIS measures, near or far, past or present.
And that has curious implications.
It happens that the data is available whether the local media, or the Team of Eight, chooses to publish or not. See here.
http://www.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/aeis/index.html
Unlike the changes to data being collected between TASS years and TAKS years, the data measures on teacher experience have been consistent for over a decade. The AEIS tables report the number, and percentage, of teachers by ethnicity and sex, by highest degree held, by years of teaching experience, and by length of term of employment with their current district.
Since 2004, when Dr Lewis arrived as superintendent, the statistic of "average years teachers experience" has declined from 8.1 years to 7.1 years. Compared to the statewide average, LISD has gone from 31% below average (for the state, average experience was 11.8 years in 2004) to 38% below current average (11.5 years) While the statewide average has held steady since 1994, year after year the average experience of Texas teachers is measured at 11-point-something; the LISD level has trended downwards -- 10.2 in '94; 9.6 in '95; 8.9; 8.7; 8.3; 7.2 ... Our
teachers routinely had have about one-third less experience than the state's average; and the trend appears to be getting worse.
Again, since 2004 ,the measure of length of service, "years in this district" statistic has declined from 4.5 years to 3.0 years. Statewide, the typical teacher has been employed by the same district for 7+ years. Our "years in district" number has declined from 42% below average in 2004 to 60% below average in 2006.
In the 2005-06 school year over 11% of LISD teachers were in their first year of the profession. Statewide, the average is 7%. LISD teachers with only 1 to 5 years of experience comprised 46% of our staffing, compared to 29% statewise. The GOOD news is, and such as it is, the trend is improving. In school year ending 2003 the percent of new teachers (0, or 1 to 5 yrs exp) was 62% in LISD compared to 36%
statewide. The statewide figure is pretty constant but the district has gotten closer to typical by 5 percentage points.
At the other end of the experience spectrum LISD is hurting. We had about 12% of our teachers reporting 20 or more years of experience in 2003 and now we have only 7% with that level of experience. Statewide, typically, about 20% of teachers have 20 or more years. The decline in the fraction of most experienced teachers in LISD is a long term trend with this measure falling steadily from 15% (only 4 or 5 percentage points below average) in the early 1990's to half that fraction last
year.
The LISD measures on "highest degree held" are roughly the same as the measures statewide. We have a slightly higher percentage of doctorates, a slightly lower percentage of masters-degree teachers, and about 2 percent points higher, (year after year after year) of those with bachelors and "no degree". Ms Sadberry points out to the Team of Eight that having no degree MEASURED isn't the same as having no degree -- she says the district wouldn't hire a teacher without proper certification.
What "no degree" means is that LISD can't figure out what the degree for a particular teacher should be. (That's ANOTHER bit of data with curious implications.) Statewide there are always about 1% of all teachers who fall into the "no degree (known)" category. For LISD the past three years, that statistic has been 4%, 3.7% and 2.4%. Again, such as it is, this is an improvement. The LISD HR shop is now only half as ignorant about our teachers' certifications as they were 3 years ago.
Teacher pay is up, since 3 years ago. We were paying starting teacher $32K, roughly the state average pay rate, in 2003 but now we pay about $40K (about $5K more (or about 13% more) than the state average. Among our most-experienced teachers pay rates have slipped. The absolute rate has increased from $52K three years ago to $55K now. But comparatively, pay rates have decreased from about 1% _more_ than state average for teachers of comparable experience to only about 0.6% -- down 0.4% -- above average. Still, it's good news that the LISD is making at least some effort to keep experienced staff.
During and after Pat Sadberry's presentation, Trustee Russ Johnson forcefully asserted his opinion that teacher experience matters. It appeared he was frustrated that the amount of detailed information being presented about the district's teachers was inadequate by his standards. Kudos, Mr Johnson.
Why is easily available data NOT being presented to the board?
Dr Lewis mentioned, last night, that when he arrived the Trustees had no real idea of the financial condition of the district. Dr Lewis reported that instead of the $800K in debt the Board mistakenly believed it was carrying, the district was, in fact, over $5 Million in the red.
Obviously Dr Lewis knows that no problem can be resolved unless the whole Team of Eight is aware of the problem, and actively seeking a solution.
The data available on teacher retention indicates the Board needs to be looking for a solution on keeping good teachers.
It's a pity the "public hearing" didn't make the issue more explicit.
Average Years Teaching Experience
AEIS Yr LISD Texas
1993-94 6.1 11.5
1994-95 10 11.5
1995-96 10.2 11.7
1996-97 9.6 11.7
1997-98 8.9 11.8
1998-99 8.7 11.8
1999-00 8.3 11.9
2000-01 7.2 11.9
2001-02 7.6 11.9
2002-03 7.3 11.8
2003-04 8.1 11.8
2004-05 6.3 11.5
2005-06 7.1 11.5
Average Years in Same District
AEIS Yr LISD Texas
1993-94 4.1 7.8
1994-95 5.8 7.8
1995-96 6 8
1996-97 5.3 8
1997-98 4.7 8
1998-99 4.7 8
1999-00 4.6 8
2000-01 4.3 7.9
2001-02 3.8 7.9
2002-03 4.4 7.7
2003-04 4.5 7.8
2004-05 2.8 7.5
2005-06 3 7.6
Percent of Teachers
with Zero Experience
AEIS Yr LISD Texas
1993-94 47.10% 6.40%
1994-95 11.30% 6.70%
1995-96 11.30% 6.30%
1996-97 19.80% 6.60%
1997-98 15.30% 7.00%
1998-99 21.40% 7.70%
1999-00 15.00% 7.60%
2000-01 28.20% 7.80%
2001-02 23.40% 7.80%
2002-03 21.50% 7.80%
2003-04 15.90% 6.50%
2004-05 29.90% 7.70%
2005-06 11.20% 7.50%
Percent of Teachers
with 1- 5 Years Experience
AEIS Yr LISD Texas
1993-94 15.40% 25.60%
1994-95 29.90% 26.20%
1995-96 31.50% 27.00%
1996-97 26.40% 26.80%
1997-98 33.50% 26.60%
1998-99 31.10% 26.70%
1999-00 41.30% 27.00%
2000-01 33.50% 27.40%
2001-02 35.30% 27.40%
2002-03 40.50% 28.20%
2003-04 42.10% 29.00%
2004-05 33.00% 28.70%
2005-06 46.10% 29.00%
Percent of Teachers
with 6-10 Years Experience
AEIS Yr LISD Texas
1993-94 11.40% 19.20%
1994-95 21.00% 18.80%
1995-96 16.70% 18.00%
1996-97 13.90% 17.40%
1997-98 14.80% 17.50%
1998-99 11.70% 17.70%
1999-00 10.90% 17.90%
2000-01 8.40% 18.10%
2001-02 11.30% 18.10%
2002-03 11.40% 18.30%
2003-04 12.90% 18.90%
2004-05 13.90% 19.40%
2005-06 19.70% 19.40%
Percent of Teachers
with 11-20 Years Experience
AEIS Yr LISD Texas
1993-94 16.20% 31.80%
1994-95 23.70% 30.50%
1995-96 25.50% 30.00%
1996-97 24.60% 29.60%
1997-98 21.90% 28.70%
1998-99 20.50% 27.50%
1999-00 19.90% 26.20%
2000-01 20.00% 25.30%
2001-02 17.90% 25.30%
2002-03 16.00% 24.40%
2003-04 16.70% 24.80%
2004-05 16.90% 24.50%
2005-06 15.90% 24.20%
Percent of Teachers with
20 or more Years Experience
AEIS Yr LISD Texas
1993-94 9.90% 17.00%
1994-95 14.00% 17.80%
1995-96 15.00% 18.80%
1996-97 15.30% 19.50%
1997-98 14.50% 20.10%
1998-99 15.20% 20.50%
1999-00 12.90% 21.20%
2000-01 9.80% 21.40%
2001-02 12.00% 21.40%
2002-03 10.50% 21.30%
2003-04 12.30% 20.90%
2004-05 6.30% 19.70%
2005-06 7.00% 19.90%
Percent of Teachers with
No Degree (specified)
AEIS Yr LISD Texas
1993-94 3.30% 0.70%
1994-95 6.40% 1.00%
1995-96 3.80% 1.00%
1996-97 5.40% 0.90%
1997-98 0.00% 1.00%
1998-99 4.90% 1.30%
1999-00 1.80% 1.20%
2000-01 1.40% 1.30%
2001-02 3.50% 1.40%
2002-03 3.30% 1.30%
2003-04 4.00% 1.10%
2004-05 3.70% 1.10%
2005-06 2.40% 1.00%
Percent of Teachers
with Bachelors Degree
AEIS Yr LISD Texas
1993-94 65.10% 70.50%
1994-95 64.50% 71.10%
1995-96 68.90% 71.60%
1996-97 71.00% 72.10%
1997-98 81.10% 73.00%
1998-99 76.70% 73.60%
1999-00 80.40% 74.10%
2000-01 80.00% 74.70%
2001-02 79.20% 75.30%
2002-03 80.60% 76.00%
2003-04 78.00% 76.40%
2004-05 81.60% 77.10%
2005-06 79.70% 77.30%
Percent of Teachers
with Masters Degree
AEIS Yr LISD Texas
1993-94 31.20% 28.40%
1994-95 28.70% 27.50%
1995-96 26.90% 26.90%
1996-97 23.20% 26.60%
1997-98 18.20% 25.60%
1998-99 17.70% 24.70%
1999-00 17.50% 24.30%
2000-01 18.20% 23.40%
2001-02 16.30% 22.80%
2002-03 15.10% 22.20%
2003-04 16.60% 22.00%
2004-05 13.80% 21.30%
2005-06 17.40% 21.20%
Percent of Teachers
with Doctorate Degree
AEIS Yr LISD Texas
1993-94 0.40% 0.40%
1994-95 0.40% 0.40%
1995-96 0.40% 0.40%
1996-97 0.40% 0.40%
1997-98 0.70% 0.40%
1998-99 0.70% 0.40%
1999-00 0.40% 0.50%
2000-01 0.40% 0.50%
2001-02 1.00% 0.50%
2002-03 1.00% 0.50%
2003-04 1.30% 0.50%
2004-05 0.90% 0.50%
2005-06 0.50% 0.50%