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.