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.
Friday, March 02, 2007
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%
Friday, December 22, 2006
How effective are pre-Kindergarten programs at improving student accomplishments?
http://www.nber.org/papers/w10452
---- Abstract -----
Prekindergarten programs are expanding rapidly, but to date, evidence on their effects is quite limited. Using rich data from Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, we estimate the effects of prekindergarten on children's school readiness. We find that prekindergarten increases reading and mathematics skills at school entry, but also increases behavioral problems and reduces self-control. Furthermore, the effects of prekindergarten on skills largely dissipate by the spring of first grade, although the behavioral effects do not. Finally, effects differ depending on children's family background and subsequent schooling, with the largest and most lasting academic gains for disadvantaged children and those attending schools with low levels of academic instruction.
http://www.nber.org/digest/mar05/w10452.html
The behavior of disadvantaged children who attended pre-kindergarten was similar to that of the general population of children at school entry. But by spring of the first year, it got somewhat worse. They were in the 69th percentile in terms of problem behaviors. Attending pre-kindergarten, however, does not appear to increase the probability that a disadvantaged child will repeat kindergarten or be held back in first grade. Also, the behavioral effects may differ depending on whether or not the child continues on in kindergarten in the same school as the pre-kindergarten program.
From these findings, the authors conclude that for maximum effectiveness, further expansions of pre-kindergarten should be mainly focused on children who are disadvantaged or who will go on to attend low instruction schools. In 1990, governmental leaders endorsed as the first of eight national educational goals that: "By the year 2000, all children should enter school ready to learn." Nonetheless, the enrollment of disadvantaged children in early education programs remains relatively low - despite an increase in overall state spending on pre-kindergarten of 250 percent to $1.9 billion by the turn of the century.
http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/05_5563_barnett-belfield.pdf
Across these studies, the average initial effect on cognitive abilities is about 0.50 standard deviations, roughly equivalent to 7 or 8 points on an IQ test with a 100-point scale and a standard deviation of 15. Average effects on self-esteem,
motivation, and social behavior are also positive, though somewhat smaller. In what follows, we review the best evidence to summarize what is known about how various programs—family support, child care, Head Start, public preschool, and several very intensive educational interventions (which have yet to be implemented on a large scale)—affect children’s skills.
Studies find that typical center-based child care (as opposed to home or other types of care) improves cognitive abilities by about 0.10–0.33 standard deviations. Most estimates are in the 0.10–0.15 range for cognitive and language development. Evidence is mixed on whether effects are larger when care begins before age three. Some nonexperimental studies have found that child care can increase antisocial behavior at school entry, with effect sizes of about 0.08–0.20.
The evidence is mixed with respect to whether effects are larger for disadvantaged
children than for those from more advantaged homes. Some studies have found that
higher program quality, measured in various ways, may lead to small improvements
(0.04–0.08) in cognitive and language ability and in behavior.
Though early child care and education have positive initial effects on cognitive abilities, those effects tend to decline over time and in many studies are negligible several years after children leave the programs. The fade-out is most salient for general cognitive abilities, or aptitude, as measured by IQ and
similar measures.
http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol5no3.pdf
Long-Term Outcomes of Early Childhood Programs: Analysis and Recommendations
1. What are the long-term outcomes of early childhood programs?
The evidence for long-term benefits in the evaluation literature is not
uniformly positive, so questions are often raised about what outcomes can
reliably be produced by different program types.
2. What can be learned from the experience of the past three decades to help design more effective programs?
If different programs do yield different long-term results, then perhaps those varying results can provide lessons to guide program design and to
help policymakers prioritize investments among competing program types.
3. Can early childhood programs provided in a routine manner on a large scale
yield the expected benefits?
If the level of funding and quality of services provided by the large-scale public programs do not measure up to the quality of the carefully designed, model programs that yielded long-term outcomes, perhaps the public programs will not be able to produce the same positive outcomes.
Generally, the research indicates that participation in early childhood programs
can result in IQ gains of about eight points immediately after completion of the program. The IQ advantage that the children who attended the early childhood program
have over those in the control group usually persists until the children enter school, but it diminishes as they progress through the early grades. In most studies, the IQ scores of the two groups converge: the IQ scores of participating children tend to drop a little, while the scores of the control children rise in response to the stimulation they encounter in the school environment.
----
It looks to me as if any advantage offered by pre-K programs are likely to be
(a) small (b) short term, (c) expensive, and (d) unreliable.
So, with this and more professional literature in hand, what has the Lancaster ISD "Team of Eight" decided about pre-K?
More to come.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w10452
---- Abstract -----
Prekindergarten programs are expanding rapidly, but to date, evidence on their effects is quite limited. Using rich data from Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, we estimate the effects of prekindergarten on children's school readiness. We find that prekindergarten increases reading and mathematics skills at school entry, but also increases behavioral problems and reduces self-control. Furthermore, the effects of prekindergarten on skills largely dissipate by the spring of first grade, although the behavioral effects do not. Finally, effects differ depending on children's family background and subsequent schooling, with the largest and most lasting academic gains for disadvantaged children and those attending schools with low levels of academic instruction.
http://www.nber.org/digest/mar05/w10452.html
The behavior of disadvantaged children who attended pre-kindergarten was similar to that of the general population of children at school entry. But by spring of the first year, it got somewhat worse. They were in the 69th percentile in terms of problem behaviors. Attending pre-kindergarten, however, does not appear to increase the probability that a disadvantaged child will repeat kindergarten or be held back in first grade. Also, the behavioral effects may differ depending on whether or not the child continues on in kindergarten in the same school as the pre-kindergarten program.
From these findings, the authors conclude that for maximum effectiveness, further expansions of pre-kindergarten should be mainly focused on children who are disadvantaged or who will go on to attend low instruction schools. In 1990, governmental leaders endorsed as the first of eight national educational goals that: "By the year 2000, all children should enter school ready to learn." Nonetheless, the enrollment of disadvantaged children in early education programs remains relatively low - despite an increase in overall state spending on pre-kindergarten of 250 percent to $1.9 billion by the turn of the century.
http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/05_5563_barnett-belfield.pdf
Across these studies, the average initial effect on cognitive abilities is about 0.50 standard deviations, roughly equivalent to 7 or 8 points on an IQ test with a 100-point scale and a standard deviation of 15. Average effects on self-esteem,
motivation, and social behavior are also positive, though somewhat smaller. In what follows, we review the best evidence to summarize what is known about how various programs—family support, child care, Head Start, public preschool, and several very intensive educational interventions (which have yet to be implemented on a large scale)—affect children’s skills.
Studies find that typical center-based child care (as opposed to home or other types of care) improves cognitive abilities by about 0.10–0.33 standard deviations. Most estimates are in the 0.10–0.15 range for cognitive and language development. Evidence is mixed on whether effects are larger when care begins before age three. Some nonexperimental studies have found that child care can increase antisocial behavior at school entry, with effect sizes of about 0.08–0.20.
The evidence is mixed with respect to whether effects are larger for disadvantaged
children than for those from more advantaged homes. Some studies have found that
higher program quality, measured in various ways, may lead to small improvements
(0.04–0.08) in cognitive and language ability and in behavior.
Though early child care and education have positive initial effects on cognitive abilities, those effects tend to decline over time and in many studies are negligible several years after children leave the programs. The fade-out is most salient for general cognitive abilities, or aptitude, as measured by IQ and
similar measures.
http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol5no3.pdf
Long-Term Outcomes of Early Childhood Programs: Analysis and Recommendations
1. What are the long-term outcomes of early childhood programs?
The evidence for long-term benefits in the evaluation literature is not
uniformly positive, so questions are often raised about what outcomes can
reliably be produced by different program types.
2. What can be learned from the experience of the past three decades to help design more effective programs?
If different programs do yield different long-term results, then perhaps those varying results can provide lessons to guide program design and to
help policymakers prioritize investments among competing program types.
3. Can early childhood programs provided in a routine manner on a large scale
yield the expected benefits?
If the level of funding and quality of services provided by the large-scale public programs do not measure up to the quality of the carefully designed, model programs that yielded long-term outcomes, perhaps the public programs will not be able to produce the same positive outcomes.
Generally, the research indicates that participation in early childhood programs
can result in IQ gains of about eight points immediately after completion of the program. The IQ advantage that the children who attended the early childhood program
have over those in the control group usually persists until the children enter school, but it diminishes as they progress through the early grades. In most studies, the IQ scores of the two groups converge: the IQ scores of participating children tend to drop a little, while the scores of the control children rise in response to the stimulation they encounter in the school environment.
----
It looks to me as if any advantage offered by pre-K programs are likely to be
(a) small (b) short term, (c) expensive, and (d) unreliable.
So, with this and more professional literature in hand, what has the Lancaster ISD "Team of Eight" decided about pre-K?
More to come.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Ten Mile Crook
T.I.G.E.R.s, others of Lancaster, and wanna-be developers ought to check out the new blog on the block: The Ten Mile Crook. Lots of back-story about the Uniform Development Code, city politics, and why Landon and Lewis were so important (or not) in recent history.
Check it out.
T.I.G.E.R.s, others of Lancaster, and wanna-be developers ought to check out the new blog on the block: The Ten Mile Crook. Lots of back-story about the Uniform Development Code, city politics, and why Landon and Lewis were so important (or not) in recent history.
Check it out.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Security in LISD
The AEIS data on all districts includes a budget line for "security". It's up to each district what sorts of things are charged off to this budget line. The payroll for district police, for instance, almost certainly is in all districts. But the ID badges that may (or in some districts, may not) be used to control access to campus may be charged off to "security" or to an attendance or overhead budget. So it's not always an exact apples-to-apples comparison to compare security budgets from one district to another or even within the district from one year to another.
Let's do so anyway. Having data is always better than not having the data. (And it's certainly better than not bothering to even look for the data.)
Since 1996, in Texas overall, spending for school security is up from 0.4% of the budget to 0.7% in 2006. But it's actually been holding fairly steady between 0.6% and 0.7% for the past 4 years.
DeSoto, by contrast, somehow manages to devote about 0.3% of their budget to security. Red Oak spent about 0.8% last year, down from a high of 0.9% in 2002-03. Duncanville has budgeed increasing shares since 2000, going from a Texas-typical share of 0.6% in 2000 to a local record-high percentage of 1.0% in 2005-06.
In Lancaster the district began the AEIS reporting era, in 1996, with 1.1% of the budget devoted to security. That compared to a state average of 0.4% the same year. The share climbed slowly thru 2002. Then for the year ending 2003 the security budget in LISD jumped to 1.7% of all expenses.
Looking at it another way, state wide averages showed most Texas districts spending just over $20 per enrolled student on security in 1996 and doubling that to nearly $50 dollars in 2006. DeSoto went from $9/student to $16/s. Duncanville from $17 to $69/student.
Lancaster was spending $45/student in 1996. By the peak in 2003, the LISD was spending $103/student on "security" - consistantly over twice the state average for the same years.
But after Dr Lewis arrived, the budget turned around. In the 2004-05 year, budgeted spending for security dropped, back down to 1.5% and down to $99 per student in 05 and $87 /student in '06.
This might mean more money in the classroom for teaching, books and that stuff.
This might actually be an accomplishment for Dr Lewis.
Or.
It could be that by turning a blind eye to known security needs and issues, and cutting vital funds to critical programs, LISD relaxed attitude and loss of focus on proper security has resulted in the recent spate of thefts reported in local media.
You might spin this either way.
I'm actually inclined to think this might be one of Dr Lewis's accomplishments. I'm not a fan of any school systems having a distinct police force. (1) Or, if they DO, why not a separate fire department and water treatment plant, too? There's something so wrong with the regular city cops that we can't allow them into the schools? When the district has a ten-year history of OVERspending (in comparison to the state and other local districts) on a budget line, and it's slowly turning around, I am somewhat predisposed to hope it's an indication of progress.
On the other hand, that assumes that fights, vandalism and truancy are held to at least a no-worse level of misery.
This would be easier to determine if the district followed state laws regarding record keeping, and public disclosure of such records, on fights, truancy, etc.
But anyway, as a start, the focus on reducing unnecessary expenses is encouraging.
Is security unnecessary?
You tell me.
(1) Ditto DART. You tell me we must employ a gun-toting uniformed officer of the law to keep people from riding the light rail between the VA and Reunion Arena without paying full fare, okay fine. But he is MORE necessary in that capacity than in having the same cop on the city payroll to enforce laws against, oh I dunno, rape or sumthin'? I'm missing some subtle part of the economic reasoning, there.
The AEIS data on all districts includes a budget line for "security". It's up to each district what sorts of things are charged off to this budget line. The payroll for district police, for instance, almost certainly is in all districts. But the ID badges that may (or in some districts, may not) be used to control access to campus may be charged off to "security" or to an attendance or overhead budget. So it's not always an exact apples-to-apples comparison to compare security budgets from one district to another or even within the district from one year to another.
Let's do so anyway. Having data is always better than not having the data. (And it's certainly better than not bothering to even look for the data.)
Since 1996, in Texas overall, spending for school security is up from 0.4% of the budget to 0.7% in 2006. But it's actually been holding fairly steady between 0.6% and 0.7% for the past 4 years.
DeSoto, by contrast, somehow manages to devote about 0.3% of their budget to security. Red Oak spent about 0.8% last year, down from a high of 0.9% in 2002-03. Duncanville has budgeed increasing shares since 2000, going from a Texas-typical share of 0.6% in 2000 to a local record-high percentage of 1.0% in 2005-06.
In Lancaster the district began the AEIS reporting era, in 1996, with 1.1% of the budget devoted to security. That compared to a state average of 0.4% the same year. The share climbed slowly thru 2002. Then for the year ending 2003 the security budget in LISD jumped to 1.7% of all expenses.
Looking at it another way, state wide averages showed most Texas districts spending just over $20 per enrolled student on security in 1996 and doubling that to nearly $50 dollars in 2006. DeSoto went from $9/student to $16/s. Duncanville from $17 to $69/student.
Lancaster was spending $45/student in 1996. By the peak in 2003, the LISD was spending $103/student on "security" - consistantly over twice the state average for the same years.
But after Dr Lewis arrived, the budget turned around. In the 2004-05 year, budgeted spending for security dropped, back down to 1.5% and down to $99 per student in 05 and $87 /student in '06.
This might mean more money in the classroom for teaching, books and that stuff.
This might actually be an accomplishment for Dr Lewis.
Or.
It could be that by turning a blind eye to known security needs and issues, and cutting vital funds to critical programs, LISD relaxed attitude and loss of focus on proper security has resulted in the recent spate of thefts reported in local media.
You might spin this either way.
I'm actually inclined to think this might be one of Dr Lewis's accomplishments. I'm not a fan of any school systems having a distinct police force. (1) Or, if they DO, why not a separate fire department and water treatment plant, too? There's something so wrong with the regular city cops that we can't allow them into the schools? When the district has a ten-year history of OVERspending (in comparison to the state and other local districts) on a budget line, and it's slowly turning around, I am somewhat predisposed to hope it's an indication of progress.
On the other hand, that assumes that fights, vandalism and truancy are held to at least a no-worse level of misery.
This would be easier to determine if the district followed state laws regarding record keeping, and public disclosure of such records, on fights, truancy, etc.
But anyway, as a start, the focus on reducing unnecessary expenses is encouraging.
Is security unnecessary?
You tell me.
(1) Ditto DART. You tell me we must employ a gun-toting uniformed officer of the law to keep people from riding the light rail between the VA and Reunion Arena without paying full fare, okay fine. But he is MORE necessary in that capacity than in having the same cop on the city payroll to enforce laws against, oh I dunno, rape or sumthin'? I'm missing some subtle part of the economic reasoning, there.
TRS updates.
Well, I promised to keep you posted on the TRS situation.
I haven't posted anything recently.
Maybe I've had some e-mail from Austin about the superintendent of LISD, but I'm keeping it all secret for reasons of my own, which are ALSO secret.
Or maybe the guy in Austin in charge of TRS hasn't responded.
Maybe I'm a lazy incompetent hack who boasts about what I know but am just too bored with my hometown to share my information with others.
Or maybe something else is going on.
I guess you'll have to guess.
Well, I promised to keep you posted on the TRS situation.
I haven't posted anything recently.
Maybe I've had some e-mail from Austin about the superintendent of LISD, but I'm keeping it all secret for reasons of my own, which are ALSO secret.
Or maybe the guy in Austin in charge of TRS hasn't responded.
Maybe I'm a lazy incompetent hack who boasts about what I know but am just too bored with my hometown to share my information with others.
Or maybe something else is going on.
I guess you'll have to guess.
Monday, December 11, 2006
The Dallas Morning News writes about charter schools in SE Dallas.
The news is not good. The charter is wasting a bunch of money on non-essential administration. The superintendent hires relatives and cronies. And test scores, frankly, are awful. See article.
But the worst thing is that the mis-managed charter, the A+ Academy, a K-12 school posted generally better TAKS scores than did the Lancaster K-12 school district.
According to the AEIS website, for A+ Charter
TAKS Met 2006 Standard (Sum of All Grades Tested, EXCLUDING grade 8 Science)
(Standard Accountability Indicator)
I suppose the charter school that botches its financial reporting could be helping TAKS takers cheat on the tests. And that every score, however low, in the Lancaster district is at least honestly earned.
I hope that's the reason.
The news is not good. The charter is wasting a bunch of money on non-essential administration. The superintendent hires relatives and cronies. And test scores, frankly, are awful. See article.
But the worst thing is that the mis-managed charter, the A+ Academy, a K-12 school posted generally better TAKS scores than did the Lancaster K-12 school district.
According to the AEIS website, for A+ Charter
TAKS Met 2006 Standard (Sum of All Grades Tested, EXCLUDING grade 8 Science)
(Standard Accountability Indicator)
A+ LISD
State District Campus District
Reading/ELA 2006 87% 75% 75% 73%
2005 83% 64% 64% 67%
Mathematics 2006 75% 50% 50% 50%
2005 71% 35% 35% 42%
Writing 2006 91% 74% 74% 81%
2005 90% 65% 65% 79%
Science 2006 70% 49% 49% 37%
2005 63% 32% 32% 31%
Soc Studies 2006 87% 84% 84% 67%
2005 87% 79% 79% 71%
All Tests 2006 67% 43% 43% 37%
2005 62% 30% 30% 31%
I suppose the charter school that botches its financial reporting could be helping TAKS takers cheat on the tests. And that every score, however low, in the Lancaster district is at least honestly earned.
I hope that's the reason.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
"This dog appears to be sleeping and will be let lay."
Uhm. Either the local union representative of the largest employer in Lancaster is lying, or the district accounting system has caused some serious confusion (at best) at the Texas Retirement System. Either way, there's an interesting story here.
I've sent an e-mail to Howard Goldman of TRS to complete Steve Synder's interview for him. (He's sleeping, and we'll just let him lie.) Just WHEN, I ask, were the September and October payments credited. If the November payment was due yesterday, 8 December,it seems likely that the September payment was due around the 8th or so of October. If those funds were not credited until the first week of December I'd like to know that, and what accounts for the delay.
And if the funds WERE credited on time, what motivates the union to lie about it?
This sort of curiosity about the context of such matters is probably what keeps me from being a journalist. I just can't stop with the first answer, the way they do.
Anyhow, a personal anecdote. Two weeks ago while I was up a the Centre Street building waiting patiently for the one and only person authorized to talk to me to come out of a meeting, an LISD employee arrived to see another specially authorized person. Apparently only one person at Centre Street can correct payroll problems. The employee explained to Ms Allen, the receptionist, that this was the THIRD apointment she'd had with the person, and the third time it was missed.
The problem, the employee explained, was that she'd been issued a check by mistake, and wanted to return it. Apparently the district runs a "Christmas Club" program where small sums are, optionally, withheld from each paycheck. Then, during the seaon, a large lumpsum payment is cut to the participants. The employee explained that she had participated in the past, but was NOT contributing this year. She'd gotten her lump sum payment by mistake. She'd made three trips to Centre Street trying to return it. But the district couldn't seem to make the appropriate official available to its employee to help.
All that got me wondering.
How many employees that got overpayments by mistake would just quit at this point, keep the money, and not make a fourth attempt to do the right thing?
How many had already quit after two attempts?
How many bothered to return "free money" at all?
Actually, I bet most of the LISD employees that got unearned Christmas checks are willing to fix the problem. But it is a gamble.
I'm wondering, too, if the district were inclined to reward particularly loyal cronies for cooperative behavior, if such a "mistake" could be deliberately arranged. I recall that in the financial post-mortems at Wilmer-Hutchins ISD a number of employees were drawing coaching bonuses and sponser bonuses for coaching and sponsoring programs that no longer existed. Once the flags were set in the payroll system the payments just continued. I wonder how hard it would be for a slightly dishonest accountant to finagle such a payoff in the LISD payroll system. After all, the easiest way to steal money isn't to haul around sacks of the stuff -- but to have the victim cut you a check.
Anyhow, after the experience with the wayward Christmas Club money I was somewhat predisposed to believe the union about the retirement screw ups, and inclined to disbelieve the district's assurances that all was well. But that's just my bias showing. The facts are the facts and you gotta ask to find out. So I'm asking TRS the question.
The SECOND question. The OBVIOUS question.
I'll keep you informed.
Uhm. Either the local union representative of the largest employer in Lancaster is lying, or the district accounting system has caused some serious confusion (at best) at the Texas Retirement System. Either way, there's an interesting story here.
I've sent an e-mail to Howard Goldman of TRS to complete Steve Synder's interview for him. (He's sleeping, and we'll just let him lie.) Just WHEN, I ask, were the September and October payments credited. If the November payment was due yesterday, 8 December,it seems likely that the September payment was due around the 8th or so of October. If those funds were not credited until the first week of December I'd like to know that, and what accounts for the delay.
And if the funds WERE credited on time, what motivates the union to lie about it?
This sort of curiosity about the context of such matters is probably what keeps me from being a journalist. I just can't stop with the first answer, the way they do.
Anyhow, a personal anecdote. Two weeks ago while I was up a the Centre Street building waiting patiently for the one and only person authorized to talk to me to come out of a meeting, an LISD employee arrived to see another specially authorized person. Apparently only one person at Centre Street can correct payroll problems. The employee explained to Ms Allen, the receptionist, that this was the THIRD apointment she'd had with the person, and the third time it was missed.
The problem, the employee explained, was that she'd been issued a check by mistake, and wanted to return it. Apparently the district runs a "Christmas Club" program where small sums are, optionally, withheld from each paycheck. Then, during the seaon, a large lumpsum payment is cut to the participants. The employee explained that she had participated in the past, but was NOT contributing this year. She'd gotten her lump sum payment by mistake. She'd made three trips to Centre Street trying to return it. But the district couldn't seem to make the appropriate official available to its employee to help.
All that got me wondering.
How many employees that got overpayments by mistake would just quit at this point, keep the money, and not make a fourth attempt to do the right thing?
How many had already quit after two attempts?
How many bothered to return "free money" at all?
Actually, I bet most of the LISD employees that got unearned Christmas checks are willing to fix the problem. But it is a gamble.
I'm wondering, too, if the district were inclined to reward particularly loyal cronies for cooperative behavior, if such a "mistake" could be deliberately arranged. I recall that in the financial post-mortems at Wilmer-Hutchins ISD a number of employees were drawing coaching bonuses and sponser bonuses for coaching and sponsoring programs that no longer existed. Once the flags were set in the payroll system the payments just continued. I wonder how hard it would be for a slightly dishonest accountant to finagle such a payoff in the LISD payroll system. After all, the easiest way to steal money isn't to haul around sacks of the stuff -- but to have the victim cut you a check.
Anyhow, after the experience with the wayward Christmas Club money I was somewhat predisposed to believe the union about the retirement screw ups, and inclined to disbelieve the district's assurances that all was well. But that's just my bias showing. The facts are the facts and you gotta ask to find out. So I'm asking TRS the question.
The SECOND question. The OBVIOUS question.
I'll keep you informed.
Friday, December 08, 2006
So what do you do if there's a problem in your home? A switch that won't work, peeling exterior paint, a window that won't slide fully open or closed? Suppose you own a three-year old house, and the handyman tells you might have a shoddy installation; or you might have just got a bad unit. Either way, he says, builders just throw up the structure using the cheapest materials they can scrounge and any jake-labor they can hire. So, you gotta make some decisions.
Sell your home? Move? Cut and run? Take the loss on the current mortgage, see how big a new home loan you can qualify for, and buy a new house?
More likely you'll refigure the budget. Postpone buying the new computers or bigger TV. Devote a little each month to the Home Depot account. Work it out.
Unless you're Russ Johnson.
LISD Trustee Johnson assures us all that any money spent in maintenance, repair and renovations in old school buildings is a complete waste. He says he can't understand why anybody would waste one dime on maintenance. He tells us it's worse than a waste, it's downright theft to take money away from salaries, textbooks and fuel and spend it on old buildings.
This may actually be a more defensible position than I have been able to paraphrase. I dunno.
I was overcome with the incongruity of hearing this particular position articulated by a man who lives in the HISTORIC DISTRICT of Lancaster, in a home built in 1910. I wonder how many times over the original construction cost various owners have "wasted" money in repairs (to a roof, maybe, after a hailstorm or tornado?) or upgrades (I presume Mr Johnson's home has an air conditioner, that was added during renovations some decades after the place was built.)
I was further dumbfounded by the audacity of hearing this particular claim made in the newly refurbished Centre Street building (built 1903). Are we to understand then that Russ Johnson thinks the three million dollars of 2004 bond funds spent on that old school building was wasted? (There is a lot of community support for the proposition that '04 bond funds have been wasted but I hadn't heard the Centre Street project offered as the sole and best example before.)
And I finally struck by considering the possibility that Mr Johnson might try offering that analysis to the congregations of the various churches nearby -- Presbyterians, Baptist, etc -- many congregations still meeting in buildings half again as old as the Centre Street property. Have the generations of church members that have been sacrificing to maintain, repair, and renovate those sanctuaries been wasting their efforts?
I just don't know.
But I think I'd rather hear the proposition come up for a debate rather than a one-sided rant by a public official at his constituents.
Sell your home? Move? Cut and run? Take the loss on the current mortgage, see how big a new home loan you can qualify for, and buy a new house?
More likely you'll refigure the budget. Postpone buying the new computers or bigger TV. Devote a little each month to the Home Depot account. Work it out.
Unless you're Russ Johnson.
LISD Trustee Johnson assures us all that any money spent in maintenance, repair and renovations in old school buildings is a complete waste. He says he can't understand why anybody would waste one dime on maintenance. He tells us it's worse than a waste, it's downright theft to take money away from salaries, textbooks and fuel and spend it on old buildings.
This may actually be a more defensible position than I have been able to paraphrase. I dunno.
I was overcome with the incongruity of hearing this particular position articulated by a man who lives in the HISTORIC DISTRICT of Lancaster, in a home built in 1910. I wonder how many times over the original construction cost various owners have "wasted" money in repairs (to a roof, maybe, after a hailstorm or tornado?) or upgrades (I presume Mr Johnson's home has an air conditioner, that was added during renovations some decades after the place was built.)
I was further dumbfounded by the audacity of hearing this particular claim made in the newly refurbished Centre Street building (built 1903). Are we to understand then that Russ Johnson thinks the three million dollars of 2004 bond funds spent on that old school building was wasted? (There is a lot of community support for the proposition that '04 bond funds have been wasted but I hadn't heard the Centre Street project offered as the sole and best example before.)
And I finally struck by considering the possibility that Mr Johnson might try offering that analysis to the congregations of the various churches nearby -- Presbyterians, Baptist, etc -- many congregations still meeting in buildings half again as old as the Centre Street property. Have the generations of church members that have been sacrificing to maintain, repair, and renovate those sanctuaries been wasting their efforts?
I just don't know.
But I think I'd rather hear the proposition come up for a debate rather than a one-sided rant by a public official at his constituents.
Campaign Contributions in the Lancaster Bond Election,
November, 2006
The paperwork has not all come in. But we can't wait forever. Deadlines, even self imposed ones, are after all deadlines.
* Mr Gallagher maintains a business address / PO Box as listed on the PAC filing in Plano Texas. However he resides at 810 Saddlebrook, Lucas Texas, in the Lovejoy ISD. I have not yet obtained PAC filing from Lovejoy to determine how generous the Gallagher family has been in their own school bond elections, where their contracting firm will not benefit from the outcome. When those filings are available I will post them here.
** LA Fuess is a large structural engineering firm that has no obvious links to the Lancaster construction projects, Gallagher or Gorgan. Again, I have not yet obtained all PAC filings to see what other causes they have supported. This sort of context is interesting and as I obtain more information I will post it here.
*** The treasurer of T.I.G.E.R. reminds me that donations are still cheerfully being accepted. While I have no first hand knowledge regarding the Bond2006 PAC (who will probably have to change their name shortly) I'm fairly confident they, too, would appreciate contributions from Lancaster insiders -- for a change -- as well as more donations that might be available from the same old small circle of outsiders.
November, 2006
The paperwork has not all come in. But we can't wait forever. Deadlines, even self imposed ones, are after all deadlines.
Pro Bond Contributors.
Bond2006
Allen Development of Texas Vesalia CA $3500
Jerry Gallagher (school contrator) Plano TX $3000 *
LA Fuess (an engineering firm) Dallas TX $ 500 **
Ellen Clark Lancaster $ 500
Corgan and Associates (school architect) Dallas TX $ 500
Steve Topletz (LancasterCedardale LP) Dallas TX $ 500
Terry Stinson Lancaster $ 200
Priscilla Mayfield Lancaster $ 200
(Individual) Lancaster $ 25
Lancaster Construction Diversity PAC
(unspecified contributions, one lump sum) $ 1327
----------
Anti Bond Contributions
T.I.G.E.R. ***
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 25
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 39 (roll of stamps)
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
(Individual) Lancaster $ 50
* Mr Gallagher maintains a business address / PO Box as listed on the PAC filing in Plano Texas. However he resides at 810 Saddlebrook, Lucas Texas, in the Lovejoy ISD. I have not yet obtained PAC filing from Lovejoy to determine how generous the Gallagher family has been in their own school bond elections, where their contracting firm will not benefit from the outcome. When those filings are available I will post them here.
** LA Fuess is a large structural engineering firm that has no obvious links to the Lancaster construction projects, Gallagher or Gorgan. Again, I have not yet obtained all PAC filings to see what other causes they have supported. This sort of context is interesting and as I obtain more information I will post it here.
*** The treasurer of T.I.G.E.R. reminds me that donations are still cheerfully being accepted. While I have no first hand knowledge regarding the Bond2006 PAC (who will probably have to change their name shortly) I'm fairly confident they, too, would appreciate contributions from Lancaster insiders -- for a change -- as well as more donations that might be available from the same old small circle of outsiders.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Data and surprises.
The mother of a fifth grader spoke before the LISD board of Trustees Monday, 4th December. This is the second month in a row she's spoken.
This is the second year her daughter's taken fifth grade in LISD schools.
She has a number of issues with the district. The elected officials whom she addressed, later went to great lengths to assure each other that her issues could not possibly be true. And having satisfied themselves, the board could go home assured that they "care". The parent, on the other hand, went home feeling that nobody either cares or is competent to help.
And most of the community willl never learn of the problems. Certainly these issues will not make the local news. Discussions of left lane lopers, global warming and the evils of Exxon may appear in our finest publications, but the actual lives and future of the kids in our community are too mundane for most writers to waste time and column space with.
But not this writer. And not here, not now, and not again.
Let's read the history. Let's look up the data. And let's do the math.
Texas state law changed in 1999 The so-called "Student Success Initiative" was intended to track kids from that year forward, and those whose TAKS scores were below standard in progressively higher grades would not, themselves, progress. Not "flunked out", mind. But "held" as in warm and incubating arms, while the lessons appropriate to the child's age and grade began to "sink in". Sound commpassionate, right? No Child Left Behind ... all that.
The Kindergarteners of 1999 were the 3rd graders of 2003. Those who took their first TAKS test, and demonstrated mastery, were promoted. Those who did not demonstrate such mastery ...
Well, there's the problem.
In Texas as a whole, the "retention" rate for 3rd graders increased from just around 2.percent prior to 1999 and the SSI, to 2.5 percent in 2003.
LISD got an even bigger shock. In 2002 the retention rate for 3rd graders was 0.8 percent. In 2003, the SSI impact hammered 2.3 percent of the cohort.
Note this is already a smaller fraction than the state as a whole. But those kids were identified and were eligible for help.
The following year, 4th grade TAKS scores for Texas overall, reading and math, were up. The kids who had advanced from third having mastered the material were more likely to succeed in 4th. And the retention rate for 4th graders, in Texas overall, reflect that .. falling, for the SSI cohort, from 2.5 in third to 1.7 percent in 4th.
In LISD, though, the retention rate fell thru the floor. Zero. No kids at all were retained between 4th and 4th grade for the school year 2004-05. This is particularly interesting given that both reading and math scores lagged behind the Texas average. Only 28% of LISD students failed the 4th Grade Reading TAKS compared to only 14% for the state overall. Fourth graders in LISD saw 31% of their cohort fail math, compared to 13% of their peers overall. But fewer LISD fourth graders were required, (or had the opportunity) to repeat the grade, or attend summer make up classes.
Now the state mandates that the SSI cohort pass math. Fifth graders find it a hurdle, and state wide 3.8% of them are repeating 5th grade. But in LISD, where no fourth grader was left behind last year, 14.6% (a retention rate exceeding the state's by 384% , for those of you Harvard men following along...) of fifth graders got notice they would not be advanced to sixth. This retention rate is more than double the previous record ( 6.9% of LISD first graders were retained in 1997).
It wouldn't seem to matter much if the source of the disaster is poor students, incompetent teaching, bad textbooks, bird flu, or hurricane Katrina. When nearly 15% of a population is affected by ANY sort of disaster it's generally newsworthy, and a community pulls together to discuss the problem and search for solutions.
But not in Lancaster. Thru spring graduation of 2006 and the back-to-school autumn of the next school year, the district has been touting only their accomplishments. "Test scores are up". "Bond funds have been well spent." "The girls' track team has done it again!" Oh, and did they mention test scores were up?
Perhaps no one should be surprised that the district, during two political campaigns where rosy scenarios are perceived to be necessary to victory, that the general public didn't learn of the problem. But in their zeal to keep the bad news under wraps the district seemingly neglected to inform some of those most affected: the families.
This is Doris Allen's complaint about her daughter Dencia's treatment. Only after the end of the school year did she learn, she tells the board, that her daughter failed 5th grade math. And adding insult, the district belatedly adds her daughter has failed the math portions of 3rd and 4th grade TAKS, as well. Where is the communication, she wants to know.
How come, Ms Allen asks, a child's regular grade cards can be acceptable, even good, if the child doesn't know the material well enough to pass the tests? What do the grade cards mean? And how is a parent supposed to track a child's progress if the grade cards don't mean what the public expects them to mean?
Is a five week program of summer school really enough to help any child who is three years behind? And if a regular classroom with a regular teacher could not advance the student in an entire year at the first attempt, is another attempt using the same methods, textbooks, tools, classroom and maybe even the same teacher supposed to be really better? If so, how?
For the school year ending 2006, 82% of Texas fifth graders passed the Math TAKS. Exactly half that percentage passed in LISD. Black students did better than whites. Hispanics performed better still. Boys scored better than girls. The score and the breakdowns are all publically available -- although not at the LancasterISD.org website, even though the district's failure to publish such data is a violation of state law.
Do not mistakenly get the impression that math is the only arena in which our fifth graders are struggling. In reading, 81% of all Texas 5th graders can read at TAKS standards, but only 51% of ther LISD peers can do so. On this measure, white students do better than Hispanics, who do better than blacks. LISD girls read better than boys. In "Science" the TAKS results show 76% of Texas 5th graders passing, but only 42% of LISD's. Hispanics lead in this category, followed in a near-tie by blacks and whites. It's not about math. It's not about race. It's not about gender. It's about all kids of all genders and races struggling to extract any education from the system we've provided them.
The mother of a fifth grader spoke before the LISD board of Trustees Monday, 4th December. This is the second month in a row she's spoken.
This is the second year her daughter's taken fifth grade in LISD schools.
She has a number of issues with the district. The elected officials whom she addressed, later went to great lengths to assure each other that her issues could not possibly be true. And having satisfied themselves, the board could go home assured that they "care". The parent, on the other hand, went home feeling that nobody either cares or is competent to help.
And most of the community willl never learn of the problems. Certainly these issues will not make the local news. Discussions of left lane lopers, global warming and the evils of Exxon may appear in our finest publications, but the actual lives and future of the kids in our community are too mundane for most writers to waste time and column space with.
But not this writer. And not here, not now, and not again.
Let's read the history. Let's look up the data. And let's do the math.
Texas state law changed in 1999 The so-called "Student Success Initiative" was intended to track kids from that year forward, and those whose TAKS scores were below standard in progressively higher grades would not, themselves, progress. Not "flunked out", mind. But "held" as in warm and incubating arms, while the lessons appropriate to the child's age and grade began to "sink in". Sound commpassionate, right? No Child Left Behind ... all that.
The Kindergarteners of 1999 were the 3rd graders of 2003. Those who took their first TAKS test, and demonstrated mastery, were promoted. Those who did not demonstrate such mastery ...
Well, there's the problem.
In Texas as a whole, the "retention" rate for 3rd graders increased from just around 2.percent prior to 1999 and the SSI, to 2.5 percent in 2003.
LISD got an even bigger shock. In 2002 the retention rate for 3rd graders was 0.8 percent. In 2003, the SSI impact hammered 2.3 percent of the cohort.
Note this is already a smaller fraction than the state as a whole. But those kids were identified and were eligible for help.
The following year, 4th grade TAKS scores for Texas overall, reading and math, were up. The kids who had advanced from third having mastered the material were more likely to succeed in 4th. And the retention rate for 4th graders, in Texas overall, reflect that .. falling, for the SSI cohort, from 2.5 in third to 1.7 percent in 4th.
In LISD, though, the retention rate fell thru the floor. Zero. No kids at all were retained between 4th and 4th grade for the school year 2004-05. This is particularly interesting given that both reading and math scores lagged behind the Texas average. Only 28% of LISD students failed the 4th Grade Reading TAKS compared to only 14% for the state overall. Fourth graders in LISD saw 31% of their cohort fail math, compared to 13% of their peers overall. But fewer LISD fourth graders were required, (or had the opportunity) to repeat the grade, or attend summer make up classes.
Now the state mandates that the SSI cohort pass math. Fifth graders find it a hurdle, and state wide 3.8% of them are repeating 5th grade. But in LISD, where no fourth grader was left behind last year, 14.6% (a retention rate exceeding the state's by 384% , for those of you Harvard men following along...) of fifth graders got notice they would not be advanced to sixth. This retention rate is more than double the previous record ( 6.9% of LISD first graders were retained in 1997).
It wouldn't seem to matter much if the source of the disaster is poor students, incompetent teaching, bad textbooks, bird flu, or hurricane Katrina. When nearly 15% of a population is affected by ANY sort of disaster it's generally newsworthy, and a community pulls together to discuss the problem and search for solutions.
But not in Lancaster. Thru spring graduation of 2006 and the back-to-school autumn of the next school year, the district has been touting only their accomplishments. "Test scores are up". "Bond funds have been well spent." "The girls' track team has done it again!" Oh, and did they mention test scores were up?
Perhaps no one should be surprised that the district, during two political campaigns where rosy scenarios are perceived to be necessary to victory, that the general public didn't learn of the problem. But in their zeal to keep the bad news under wraps the district seemingly neglected to inform some of those most affected: the families.
This is Doris Allen's complaint about her daughter Dencia's treatment. Only after the end of the school year did she learn, she tells the board, that her daughter failed 5th grade math. And adding insult, the district belatedly adds her daughter has failed the math portions of 3rd and 4th grade TAKS, as well. Where is the communication, she wants to know.
How come, Ms Allen asks, a child's regular grade cards can be acceptable, even good, if the child doesn't know the material well enough to pass the tests? What do the grade cards mean? And how is a parent supposed to track a child's progress if the grade cards don't mean what the public expects them to mean?
Is a five week program of summer school really enough to help any child who is three years behind? And if a regular classroom with a regular teacher could not advance the student in an entire year at the first attempt, is another attempt using the same methods, textbooks, tools, classroom and maybe even the same teacher supposed to be really better? If so, how?
For the school year ending 2006, 82% of Texas fifth graders passed the Math TAKS. Exactly half that percentage passed in LISD. Black students did better than whites. Hispanics performed better still. Boys scored better than girls. The score and the breakdowns are all publically available -- although not at the LancasterISD.org website, even though the district's failure to publish such data is a violation of state law.
Do not mistakenly get the impression that math is the only arena in which our fifth graders are struggling. In reading, 81% of all Texas 5th graders can read at TAKS standards, but only 51% of ther LISD peers can do so. On this measure, white students do better than Hispanics, who do better than blacks. LISD girls read better than boys. In "Science" the TAKS results show 76% of Texas 5th graders passing, but only 42% of LISD's. Hispanics lead in this category, followed in a near-tie by blacks and whites. It's not about math. It's not about race. It's not about gender. It's about all kids of all genders and races struggling to extract any education from the system we've provided them.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
"No cow is too sacred to get skewered " except from the herd Synder?
I can read. Can anybody 'round here do arithmetic?
Meadowview is platted for 790+ homes, of which 650 are built. Building started in 2002 and continues. If in fact there are 3 kids per Meadowview household enrolled in LISD, what would have been the increase in LISD enrollment since 2002 -- attributable to Meadowview alone without any increase from any other development in Lancaster (or environs, such as Bear Creek)?
650 x 3?
Now, what has been the reported actual increase in LISD enrollment since 2002? About 4000 to maybe 5500?
Do you see the problem with the Team of Eight's claims?
Now I think the problem is not that a PhD demographer who has run her own business for decades is dumber than a hack journalist and has sold bogus and unsupportable statistics to a government agency. That would be a good story, but any journalist with even minimumal delusions of adequacy, a pretense of competence, and aspirations of influence would not be bold enough to commit to his newspaper such a claim.
That sort of rumor is reserved for blogs.
The problem is not that a blogger is too lazy to check his facts and too cowardly to defend his opinions in open forum, preferring instead to block comments from any who dare prod his badly atrophied conscience, sadly decayed research skills, and madly arrogant egoism.
One gadfly more or less -- pfft. What matter?
The problem is that our duly elected public officials believe they can't tell the public the truth. No problem is bad enough as it is -- but it must be exaggerated and falsified until panic replaces thought. The LISD board of trustees is not content to claim that 100 new homes will require seats for 80 new students. No. The board, and the trustees, and the lazy innumerate arrogant uncritical Socratic Gadfly, our pretender defender, all agree that 100 new homes means 210, or 250, or over 300 new seats. And they assert that any body who doesn't think such blindingly "obvious" demographic "reality" is small-minded and anti-child.
I can understand an over-the-hill ex-football coach and former drivers-education specialist who accidentally wound up in charge of a 40 million dollar a year enterprise might have some apprehensions about people looking into his numbers.
But I can't understand or sympathize with a poseur who claims to be skeptical and anyaltical, who is content to carry the coach's water just for a seat at the game. Literally or metaphorically.
Really. Being an outsider has downsides, too, but being forced to choose between keeping one's own personal integrity and sucking up to liars is not among them.
I can read. Can anybody 'round here do arithmetic?
Meadowview is platted for 790+ homes, of which 650 are built. Building started in 2002 and continues. If in fact there are 3 kids per Meadowview household enrolled in LISD, what would have been the increase in LISD enrollment since 2002 -- attributable to Meadowview alone without any increase from any other development in Lancaster (or environs, such as Bear Creek)?
650 x 3?
Now, what has been the reported actual increase in LISD enrollment since 2002? About 4000 to maybe 5500?
Do you see the problem with the Team of Eight's claims?
Now I think the problem is not that a PhD demographer who has run her own business for decades is dumber than a hack journalist and has sold bogus and unsupportable statistics to a government agency. That would be a good story, but any journalist with even minimumal delusions of adequacy, a pretense of competence, and aspirations of influence would not be bold enough to commit to his newspaper such a claim.
That sort of rumor is reserved for blogs.
The problem is not that a blogger is too lazy to check his facts and too cowardly to defend his opinions in open forum, preferring instead to block comments from any who dare prod his badly atrophied conscience, sadly decayed research skills, and madly arrogant egoism.
One gadfly more or less -- pfft. What matter?
The problem is that our duly elected public officials believe they can't tell the public the truth. No problem is bad enough as it is -- but it must be exaggerated and falsified until panic replaces thought. The LISD board of trustees is not content to claim that 100 new homes will require seats for 80 new students. No. The board, and the trustees, and the lazy innumerate arrogant uncritical Socratic Gadfly, our pretender defender, all agree that 100 new homes means 210, or 250, or over 300 new seats. And they assert that any body who doesn't think such blindingly "obvious" demographic "reality" is small-minded and anti-child.
I can understand an over-the-hill ex-football coach and former drivers-education specialist who accidentally wound up in charge of a 40 million dollar a year enterprise might have some apprehensions about people looking into his numbers.
But I can't understand or sympathize with a poseur who claims to be skeptical and anyaltical, who is content to carry the coach's water just for a seat at the game. Literally or metaphorically.
Really. Being an outsider has downsides, too, but being forced to choose between keeping one's own personal integrity and sucking up to liars is not among them.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
I got mail today from those famous "insiders" John Wiley Price and Royce West, who apparently now live in, send kids to, and pay taxes to the Lancaster School District. Because, as you know, only OUTSIDERS oppose borrowing $215 million for school boondoggles. Since Price and West support Lancaster ISD they obviously can't be outsiders.
The two smiling insiders have presented a moving quotation from a historic forefather:
"Education does not benefit a man or woman for slavery."
How sad that the quote was mispunctuated. The flyer reads "Education, ..."
And how much sadder that our forefather's name was misspelled.
FREDERICK DOUGLASS, Senator West. Not "FreDDrick Douglas _ "
As long as we're quoting Frederick Douglass: "Knowledge renders a man unfit to be a slave." Knowledge, not rumor, not slander, not ommissions or even reputation.
Why don't the bond supporters who paid for a full page ad in the local paper and who bought the Price political support bother to provide voters with information about the SIZE of the bond? All the recent ads have omitted any mention of the $215 million price tag. They omit mention of the thirty year payback period. They omit even obfuscation about the pennies of tax rate impact that they have previously claimed as a tax "decrease". Knowledge is not what they want the voters to have. Fear of outsiders and a competition with homeschoolers, fine. But winning on the merits with a fully informed public? Not happening in this election.
But if you WANT to have our high schoolers trained to be bartenders, waitresses, and other hotel workers in the Moulin Rouge / Enterprise City project -- well I know a guy whose dreaming of helping you with that...
The two smiling insiders have presented a moving quotation from a historic forefather:
"Education does not benefit a man or woman for slavery."
How sad that the quote was mispunctuated. The flyer reads "Education, ..."
And how much sadder that our forefather's name was misspelled.
FREDERICK DOUGLASS, Senator West. Not "FreDDrick Douglas _ "
As long as we're quoting Frederick Douglass: "Knowledge renders a man unfit to be a slave." Knowledge, not rumor, not slander, not ommissions or even reputation.
Why don't the bond supporters who paid for a full page ad in the local paper and who bought the Price political support bother to provide voters with information about the SIZE of the bond? All the recent ads have omitted any mention of the $215 million price tag. They omit mention of the thirty year payback period. They omit even obfuscation about the pennies of tax rate impact that they have previously claimed as a tax "decrease". Knowledge is not what they want the voters to have. Fear of outsiders and a competition with homeschoolers, fine. But winning on the merits with a fully informed public? Not happening in this election.
But if you WANT to have our high schoolers trained to be bartenders, waitresses, and other hotel workers in the Moulin Rouge / Enterprise City project -- well I know a guy whose dreaming of helping you with that...
Thursday, November 02, 2006
A full page ad in the local paper regarding the impending bond election offers an interesting fact.
My kids are homeschooled.
Guess what? My kids can spell the word "Treasurer", too. Ellen? Call me. I can help.
Other claims are less factual. Here are "mean ACT scores" . In 2002, the last full year of the previous superintendent's administration, we saw ACT of 17.2 but the most recent years available are down to 16.5 andf 16.4 Compared to the overall Texas ACTs LISD has gone from 95% of the mean in 1994, steadily down to 86% of the state score in 2002, and down FARTHER since Dr Lewis arrived to 81.5% of the Texas average score.
SAT scores show a parallel decline, from mean score of 847 before Lewis to 802 after he arrived. This is 86% of the state average once to 81.3% currently.
And the TAKS scores, all tests all grades, according to latest AEIS figures (and the 2005-06 won't be official until AFTER the election, isn't that convenient?) have declined from 62% of the state rate to 54.8% of that rate.
Full details upon request.
Anybody can lie in a paid political ad. First Amendment rights trump truth. I have no problem with that.
But let's not be stupid.
My kids are homeschooled.
Guess what? My kids can spell the word "Treasurer", too. Ellen? Call me. I can help.
Other claims are less factual. Here are "mean ACT scores" . In 2002, the last full year of the previous superintendent's administration, we saw ACT of 17.2 but the most recent years available are down to 16.5 andf 16.4 Compared to the overall Texas ACTs LISD has gone from 95% of the mean in 1994, steadily down to 86% of the state score in 2002, and down FARTHER since Dr Lewis arrived to 81.5% of the Texas average score.
SAT scores show a parallel decline, from mean score of 847 before Lewis to 802 after he arrived. This is 86% of the state average once to 81.3% currently.
And the TAKS scores, all tests all grades, according to latest AEIS figures (and the 2005-06 won't be official until AFTER the election, isn't that convenient?) have declined from 62% of the state rate to 54.8% of that rate.
Full details upon request.
Anybody can lie in a paid political ad. First Amendment rights trump truth. I have no problem with that.
But let's not be stupid.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Well, it's HARD to "get the facts" about the LISD bond plans.
The CorganSchools.com sponsered website is still only a placeholder, as of this moment.
The district's own website continues to showcase a "frequently asked question" document that raises more questions than it answers. (Unless the apparently mis-punctuated sentence fragment answering the frequently asked question: Can the proceeds of the bond be used to purchase the 18 acre tract of land on the corner of Wintergreen Road and Dallas Avenue? is intentionally declarative: Money for land purchases for future school sites will be
Personally I don't believe the LISD "Team of Eight" has a long enough attention span to sustain a really juicy conspiracy. Quite the reverse ... the Questia e-library project goes from an unknown to the greatest-thing-since-sliced-bread in less than two weeks. A seat at a Jazz concert next to a TV personality generates a dream of "Enterprise City" in even less time. And kids in Lancaster go from comptuer illiterates who NEED laptops to become competive to computer-using naturals of the 21st century who know all about laptops even without instruction in less time than it takes to run a campaign. People who can't keep any better focus than that probably are plodding along according to deep laid plots.
But if there WERE a plot, it seems to me that the timing of the beer and wine election and the school bond would have been convenient. I mean, assuming somebody really had a vision of making the high school stadium into a city venue for professional sporting events -- soccer, minor-league football, pro javelin tossing, whatever. It just seem that fans at pro sporting venues like to drink beer. But Lancaster is, currently, dry. SO, the first step to getting a pro event into a public school facility would be getting a beer permit.
The hotel, resort, tavern, saloon and casino all would follow along naturally. And who would object? Sin Taxes are the most popular source of school financing -- the lottery already and cigarettes next year. Why NOT tax pro soccer players who come to the vo-tech high school hotel -- and the fans who buy and guzzle the beer at Tiger Stadium?
Silly, really. But all the district has to do to cut off such ridiculous speculations is admit that the whole "Moulin Rouge" thing is a side show. A distraction from the real business of teaching kids. That hotel jobs DON'T require an IB diploma, and that kids capable of an IB curriculum have more and better opportunities than clerking, waitressing, or bartending at some Vegas-style resort.
Margie Waldrop, or her husband, could come out and explain that their deals broke down and the wealthy heirs who control the foundation who own that property have backed out of the deal. That would end speculation. (And it would be consistant with the recent news about how Steve Topletz, of DB Horton, Adante, and the Lancaster "Boardwalk" development recently backed out of a land deal with the Haney Golf Course people ... I wonder, even if you trust the LISD to buy land next to Boardwalk for one of the new elementary schools, do you trust Steve Topletz to SELL that land? Interesting discussion to come next Monday...)
Or Ellen Clark, also a realtor, could come out and discuss where the best place in Lancaster might be for a new hotel -- and whether or not the site next to the High School is suitable and likely. This is a "fact" within her area of expertise. (For a change) We might find her plausible on the matter.
But.
Say a large wealthy architectural firm wanted to design a big fancy signature hotel ...
Oh, let's not be silly.
The CorganSchools.com sponsered website is still only a placeholder, as of this moment.
The district's own website continues to showcase a "frequently asked question" document that raises more questions than it answers. (Unless the apparently mis-punctuated sentence fragment answering the frequently asked question: Can the proceeds of the bond be used to purchase the 18 acre tract of land on the corner of Wintergreen Road and Dallas Avenue? is intentionally declarative: Money for land purchases for future school sites will be
Personally I don't believe the LISD "Team of Eight" has a long enough attention span to sustain a really juicy conspiracy. Quite the reverse ... the Questia e-library project goes from an unknown to the greatest-thing-since-sliced-bread in less than two weeks. A seat at a Jazz concert next to a TV personality generates a dream of "Enterprise City" in even less time. And kids in Lancaster go from comptuer illiterates who NEED laptops to become competive to computer-using naturals of the 21st century who know all about laptops even without instruction in less time than it takes to run a campaign. People who can't keep any better focus than that probably are plodding along according to deep laid plots.
But if there WERE a plot, it seems to me that the timing of the beer and wine election and the school bond would have been convenient. I mean, assuming somebody really had a vision of making the high school stadium into a city venue for professional sporting events -- soccer, minor-league football, pro javelin tossing, whatever. It just seem that fans at pro sporting venues like to drink beer. But Lancaster is, currently, dry. SO, the first step to getting a pro event into a public school facility would be getting a beer permit.
The hotel, resort, tavern, saloon and casino all would follow along naturally. And who would object? Sin Taxes are the most popular source of school financing -- the lottery already and cigarettes next year. Why NOT tax pro soccer players who come to the vo-tech high school hotel -- and the fans who buy and guzzle the beer at Tiger Stadium?
Silly, really. But all the district has to do to cut off such ridiculous speculations is admit that the whole "Moulin Rouge" thing is a side show. A distraction from the real business of teaching kids. That hotel jobs DON'T require an IB diploma, and that kids capable of an IB curriculum have more and better opportunities than clerking, waitressing, or bartending at some Vegas-style resort.
Margie Waldrop, or her husband, could come out and explain that their deals broke down and the wealthy heirs who control the foundation who own that property have backed out of the deal. That would end speculation. (And it would be consistant with the recent news about how Steve Topletz, of DB Horton, Adante, and the Lancaster "Boardwalk" development recently backed out of a land deal with the Haney Golf Course people ... I wonder, even if you trust the LISD to buy land next to Boardwalk for one of the new elementary schools, do you trust Steve Topletz to SELL that land? Interesting discussion to come next Monday...)
Or Ellen Clark, also a realtor, could come out and discuss where the best place in Lancaster might be for a new hotel -- and whether or not the site next to the High School is suitable and likely. This is a "fact" within her area of expertise. (For a change) We might find her plausible on the matter.
But.
Say a large wealthy architectural firm wanted to design a big fancy signature hotel ...
Oh, let's not be silly.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
GOLIATH.
Today we received a gigantic, glossy-slick pro-bond flyer that refers curious voters to an incomplete info website.
As of this afternoon, the "info" site is marked with a "placeholder" -- no information at all.
Oh, and the page is registered to our friends in downtown Dallas:
WHOIS information for: bond2006yes.com:
Whois Server Version 2.0
Domain Name: BOND2006YES.COM
Registrar: MELBOURNE IT, LTD. D/B/A INTERNET NAMES WORLDWIDE
Whois Server: whois.melbourneit.com
Referral URL: http://www.melbourneit.com
Name Server: NS19B.NAMESERVERS.NET
Name Server: NS19A.NAMESERVERS.NET
Status: ACTIVE
EPP Status: ok
Updated Date: 20-Oct-2006
Creation Date: 04-Oct-2006
Expiration Date: 04-Oct-2007
>>> Last update of whois database: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:30:47 EDT <<<
[whois.melbourneit.com]
Domain Name.......... bond2006yes.com
Creation Date........ 2006-10-05
Registration Date.... 2006-10-05
Expiry Date.......... 2007-10-05
Organisation Name.... Corgan Associates, Inc
Organisation Address. 501 Elm Street
Organisation Address. Suite 500
Organisation Address. Dallas
Organisation Address. 75202
Organisation Address. TX
Organisation Address. UNITED STATES
Does it make me more conspiratorial to derive amusement from the fact a Dallas architect, a Lancaster realtor, and a regional garbage hauler choose to register their local domain with an AUSTRALIAN web host?
Today we received a gigantic, glossy-slick pro-bond flyer that refers curious voters to an incomplete info website.
As of this afternoon, the "info" site is marked with a "placeholder" -- no information at all.
Oh, and the page is registered to our friends in downtown Dallas:
WHOIS information for: bond2006yes.com:
Whois Server Version 2.0
Domain Name: BOND2006YES.COM
Registrar: MELBOURNE IT, LTD. D/B/A INTERNET NAMES WORLDWIDE
Whois Server: whois.melbourneit.com
Referral URL: http://www.melbourneit.com
Name Server: NS19B.NAMESERVERS.NET
Name Server: NS19A.NAMESERVERS.NET
Status: ACTIVE
EPP Status: ok
Updated Date: 20-Oct-2006
Creation Date: 04-Oct-2006
Expiration Date: 04-Oct-2007
>>> Last update of whois database: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:30:47 EDT <<<
[whois.melbourneit.com]
Domain Name.......... bond2006yes.com
Creation Date........ 2006-10-05
Registration Date.... 2006-10-05
Expiry Date.......... 2007-10-05
Organisation Name.... Corgan Associates, Inc
Organisation Address. 501 Elm Street
Organisation Address. Suite 500
Organisation Address. Dallas
Organisation Address. 75202
Organisation Address. TX
Organisation Address. UNITED STATES
Does it make me more conspiratorial to derive amusement from the fact a Dallas architect, a Lancaster realtor, and a regional garbage hauler choose to register their local domain with an AUSTRALIAN web host?
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
The letter TODAY newspaper had no room to print last week:
I'd like to chime in on the Clark/Griesman debate about books and computers. To recap, the Clark position is "books are out of date before they can even be printed" while the Griesman claim is "Basic text books are never out of date." Clark's rebuttal cites 50 years of recent history and Griesman has not yet had a rebuttal published.
I trust Clark does not mean to assert the Lancaster ISD actually permits classes to be taught using 50-year-old textbooks. It is perhaps useful to remind readers that the state of Texas reviews all textbooks for all subjects on a six-year cycle to ensure, among other things, that Brown V. Board of Education and Gore v. Bush Supreme Court cases (of 50 and merely 6 years ago) are covered. State-approved textbooks are bought by the state, not from local funds. However local schools may buy non-approved textbooks and still recover 70% of the purchase price from state funding. So, there is no reason the local district should be using out-of-date books. (Or, as two different angry parents asserted to the LISD board of trustees on 2 Oct 2006, there's no good reason for students at our brand new high school to be 5 weeks into their AP math courses with NO TEXTBOOKS AVAILABLE AT ALL. )
By contrast the state does not reimburse the district any percentage of the costs of computers purchased in lieu of textbooks. The 18 July 2006 ruling by Attorney General Greg Abbott clarifies:
" A textbook does not include computer hardware and other equipment, because such hardware and other equipment is separately defined as "technological equipment" in section 31.002. Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 31.002(1), (3)-(4) (Vernon 2006). "
The Clark suggestion that laptops are better than textbooks therefore implies that the laptops are SO MUCH better than textbooks that our district can forego state funding. She seems to suggest our taxpayers should ignore the "free money" from the legislature and instead borrow money, to be repaid locally, to supply laptops in lieu of books to our students. Griesman's point, however, is that over the 14 years our students are in the system, (pre-K thru 12) those laptops must be replaced at least 3 and possibly as many as five times. If the I&S tax rate (our "credit limit") is capped out in the first phase of the bond package, there will be no money available to be borrowed in a few years when the laptops under discussion must be replaced. The current proposal is a "one time offer."
It's also worth citing, again, the news from the LISD 2 Oct Board of Trustees The board considered purchase of "virtual library cards" for all students via the internet service "QUESTIA". The service certainly looks excellent for social studies materials -- covering Martin Luther King, for instance. However, the sales representative presenting the program to the board frankly admitted that "there's not much in our offerings for math and science teachers and students." So much for the high-school's AP math problems. I suspect each of those students now struggling to master this difficult subject without any book whatever, would welcome a set of even Clark's fifty-year-old pre-calculus textbooks.
Finally, a comparison. Suppose that as part of the 1985 LISD bond package the board had purchased for each classroom either a then-current set of encyclopedia, for about $3000 apiece, or had spent that same sum for each classroom to have a then-current IBM-XT -- monochrome monitor, dual floppy drives, no modem or speakers, and a dot-matrix printer. Which would more likely still be in use today -- now that our 1985 debt is paid off?
I commend the Today papers for sponsoring this debate and hope more citizens will participate between now and November.
Jeff Melcher
Lancaster
---
This turned out to be a forlorn hope. The public gets Griesman, Clark and me. Pity the President of the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce, three-year-resident of Lancaster, former State representative (of DeSoto) and at present manager of public relations for Gallagher Construction Mangagement services Mr Fred Orr (get the facts, get ALL the facts) couldn't contribute a paragraph or two extolling the various virtues of the man he calls "arguably" the finest superintendent in the state.
I'd like to chime in on the Clark/Griesman debate about books and computers. To recap, the Clark position is "books are out of date before they can even be printed" while the Griesman claim is "Basic text books are never out of date." Clark's rebuttal cites 50 years of recent history and Griesman has not yet had a rebuttal published.
I trust Clark does not mean to assert the Lancaster ISD actually permits classes to be taught using 50-year-old textbooks. It is perhaps useful to remind readers that the state of Texas reviews all textbooks for all subjects on a six-year cycle to ensure, among other things, that Brown V. Board of Education and Gore v. Bush Supreme Court cases (of 50 and merely 6 years ago) are covered. State-approved textbooks are bought by the state, not from local funds. However local schools may buy non-approved textbooks and still recover 70% of the purchase price from state funding. So, there is no reason the local district should be using out-of-date books. (Or, as two different angry parents asserted to the LISD board of trustees on 2 Oct 2006, there's no good reason for students at our brand new high school to be 5 weeks into their AP math courses with NO TEXTBOOKS AVAILABLE AT ALL. )
By contrast the state does not reimburse the district any percentage of the costs of computers purchased in lieu of textbooks. The 18 July 2006 ruling by Attorney General Greg Abbott clarifies:
" A textbook does not include computer hardware and other equipment, because such hardware and other equipment is separately defined as "technological equipment" in section 31.002. Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 31.002(1), (3)-(4) (Vernon 2006). "
The Clark suggestion that laptops are better than textbooks therefore implies that the laptops are SO MUCH better than textbooks that our district can forego state funding. She seems to suggest our taxpayers should ignore the "free money" from the legislature and instead borrow money, to be repaid locally, to supply laptops in lieu of books to our students. Griesman's point, however, is that over the 14 years our students are in the system, (pre-K thru 12) those laptops must be replaced at least 3 and possibly as many as five times. If the I&S tax rate (our "credit limit") is capped out in the first phase of the bond package, there will be no money available to be borrowed in a few years when the laptops under discussion must be replaced. The current proposal is a "one time offer."
It's also worth citing, again, the news from the LISD 2 Oct Board of Trustees The board considered purchase of "virtual library cards" for all students via the internet service "QUESTIA". The service certainly looks excellent for social studies materials -- covering Martin Luther King, for instance. However, the sales representative presenting the program to the board frankly admitted that "there's not much in our offerings for math and science teachers and students." So much for the high-school's AP math problems. I suspect each of those students now struggling to master this difficult subject without any book whatever, would welcome a set of even Clark's fifty-year-old pre-calculus textbooks.
Finally, a comparison. Suppose that as part of the 1985 LISD bond package the board had purchased for each classroom either a then-current set of encyclopedia, for about $3000 apiece, or had spent that same sum for each classroom to have a then-current IBM-XT -- monochrome monitor, dual floppy drives, no modem or speakers, and a dot-matrix printer. Which would more likely still be in use today -- now that our 1985 debt is paid off?
I commend the Today papers for sponsoring this debate and hope more citizens will participate between now and November.
Jeff Melcher
Lancaster
---
This turned out to be a forlorn hope. The public gets Griesman, Clark and me. Pity the President of the Lancaster Chamber of Commerce, three-year-resident of Lancaster, former State representative (of DeSoto) and at present manager of public relations for Gallagher Construction Mangagement services Mr Fred Orr (get the facts, get ALL the facts) couldn't contribute a paragraph or two extolling the various virtues of the man he calls "arguably" the finest superintendent in the state.
GEDANKENEXPERIMENT
The gendankenexperiment , or “thought experiment” is a term of science popularly associated with Albert Einstein’s notions of relativity. This, even though Ernst Mach was the first writer to use the term in popular science writing, and he himself picked up the term from Georg Lichtenberg from a century earlier. But as a concept rather than a term, the idea of imagining fantasy worlds in which to test situations goes back much farther. Germans dreaming of railway trains which move at the speed of light and infinite chains draped across frictionless corners all owe much to the Greek philosophers imagining how prisoners might interpret the shifting shadows cast upon their cave walls by the free creatures passing outside. Could the rational mind, from viewing only the hints of shadows, infer the reality? Is our ability to infer from scant clues innate, or learned. Plato's cave was among the first laboratory of the Gedankenexperiment. And ever since, we ask ourselves: how WOULD familiar things be different, if the world around us were fantastically different?
Cue the Rod Serling “Twilight Zone” music. Now, imagine, if you will a world very similar to our own, in which the Lancaster school district failed to persuade voters to pass a $93 million bond referendum in May. But this world is also very different. For in this GedankenExperimentWelt, the alternative-LISD board of trustees came back to its voters in September with a new smaller bond proposal. Instead of more than twice the amount just rejected, our imaginary board is holding a referendum on a bond less than half that previously proposed. Suppose, for a moment, we were discussing a $40 or $45 million dollar referendum.
What projects would be included? What would be omitted? What would our district do with a mere $45 million – barely over one fifth the amount begged in our reality?
Three elementary schools of $12 million would only require $36 million of the $45. Perhaps, in that alternate world, costs have increased even faster than in our own, and $12 Million would not buy a 660 seat school. So suppose these new proposed schools were forced to cut size – perhaps as small as 500 seats each. So, 1500 additional students could be educated in the GedankenExperimentWelt’s LISD.
These schools would, of course, require land to build upon. Perhaps the fantasy board would buy as many as four sites, planning ahead for additional schools in the future. Four elementary sites of 10 to 15 acres each might be expensive – as much as $15,000, even $16,000 per acre. That would commit another $1 million from the GedankenExperimentWelt Bond.
The athletes would still want a new bus or two to go back and forth for their games. The security troops would still want shiny new cop cars. The janitors and groundskeepers would still want new pickup trucks and their supervisors would, naturally, require new sedans to drive back and forth from school to school overseeing the work force. Suppose the fantasy board set aside another $2.5 million for vehicles.
This package has not yet totaled $40 million. Perhaps we can spare another million, then, for contingencies – if the price of a vehicle goes up; or a landowner holds out for a higher price for his site, or if steel prices ACTUALLY increase …
And still that fantasyland board has money left over. Perhaps a million could be spent in demonstrating how much better children learn if they carry laptops everywhere they go Perhaps another million in miscellaneous and unspecified “technology” – toys for the techies. And still, a million or so dollars might be left over for other pilot programs and demonstrations of competence – to gain the voter’s trust and to earn the respect of critics.
And what would those GedankenExperimentWelt critics be doing, while the district was out canvassing for votes on the $45 Million bond? Passing out flyers? Barraging the newspapers with letters to the editor? Digging for data – ANY data – to explain why the district needed so MUCH money; and wondering how much of the money would be wasted?
Blogging?
Or would the skeptics and critics of that fantasyland simply and quietly sit back and let the election happen? Would skeptics, perhaps, simply wait to see the administration succeed, or fail, on the projects and planned outlined? After all, even if that $45 Million fantasy bond passed, the fantasy district would have preserved for itself financial “cap room” – a reserve, a cushion, a fall back position, if necessary, for a new board, (if necessary) and a new superintendent ( as likely) to clean up the mess of any potential failure. If the risk of failure were not so high; if the cost of the experiment were not so great, why would the skeptics and critics bother to fight such an election?
Personally, I think it fascinating to consider how a smaller bond with more modest projects might have fared in this November’s election. Pity we’ll never get the chance to find out, in this world-based reality.
The gendankenexperiment , or “thought experiment” is a term of science popularly associated with Albert Einstein’s notions of relativity. This, even though Ernst Mach was the first writer to use the term in popular science writing, and he himself picked up the term from Georg Lichtenberg from a century earlier. But as a concept rather than a term, the idea of imagining fantasy worlds in which to test situations goes back much farther. Germans dreaming of railway trains which move at the speed of light and infinite chains draped across frictionless corners all owe much to the Greek philosophers imagining how prisoners might interpret the shifting shadows cast upon their cave walls by the free creatures passing outside. Could the rational mind, from viewing only the hints of shadows, infer the reality? Is our ability to infer from scant clues innate, or learned. Plato's cave was among the first laboratory of the Gedankenexperiment. And ever since, we ask ourselves: how WOULD familiar things be different, if the world around us were fantastically different?
Cue the Rod Serling “Twilight Zone” music. Now, imagine, if you will a world very similar to our own, in which the Lancaster school district failed to persuade voters to pass a $93 million bond referendum in May. But this world is also very different. For in this GedankenExperimentWelt, the alternative-LISD board of trustees came back to its voters in September with a new smaller bond proposal. Instead of more than twice the amount just rejected, our imaginary board is holding a referendum on a bond less than half that previously proposed. Suppose, for a moment, we were discussing a $40 or $45 million dollar referendum.
What projects would be included? What would be omitted? What would our district do with a mere $45 million – barely over one fifth the amount begged in our reality?
Three elementary schools of $12 million would only require $36 million of the $45. Perhaps, in that alternate world, costs have increased even faster than in our own, and $12 Million would not buy a 660 seat school. So suppose these new proposed schools were forced to cut size – perhaps as small as 500 seats each. So, 1500 additional students could be educated in the GedankenExperimentWelt’s LISD.
These schools would, of course, require land to build upon. Perhaps the fantasy board would buy as many as four sites, planning ahead for additional schools in the future. Four elementary sites of 10 to 15 acres each might be expensive – as much as $15,000, even $16,000 per acre. That would commit another $1 million from the GedankenExperimentWelt Bond.
The athletes would still want a new bus or two to go back and forth for their games. The security troops would still want shiny new cop cars. The janitors and groundskeepers would still want new pickup trucks and their supervisors would, naturally, require new sedans to drive back and forth from school to school overseeing the work force. Suppose the fantasy board set aside another $2.5 million for vehicles.
This package has not yet totaled $40 million. Perhaps we can spare another million, then, for contingencies – if the price of a vehicle goes up; or a landowner holds out for a higher price for his site, or if steel prices ACTUALLY increase …
And still that fantasyland board has money left over. Perhaps a million could be spent in demonstrating how much better children learn if they carry laptops everywhere they go Perhaps another million in miscellaneous and unspecified “technology” – toys for the techies. And still, a million or so dollars might be left over for other pilot programs and demonstrations of competence – to gain the voter’s trust and to earn the respect of critics.
And what would those GedankenExperimentWelt critics be doing, while the district was out canvassing for votes on the $45 Million bond? Passing out flyers? Barraging the newspapers with letters to the editor? Digging for data – ANY data – to explain why the district needed so MUCH money; and wondering how much of the money would be wasted?
Blogging?
Or would the skeptics and critics of that fantasyland simply and quietly sit back and let the election happen? Would skeptics, perhaps, simply wait to see the administration succeed, or fail, on the projects and planned outlined? After all, even if that $45 Million fantasy bond passed, the fantasy district would have preserved for itself financial “cap room” – a reserve, a cushion, a fall back position, if necessary, for a new board, (if necessary) and a new superintendent ( as likely) to clean up the mess of any potential failure. If the risk of failure were not so high; if the cost of the experiment were not so great, why would the skeptics and critics bother to fight such an election?
Personally, I think it fascinating to consider how a smaller bond with more modest projects might have fared in this November’s election. Pity we’ll never get the chance to find out, in this world-based reality.
Let's get back to the issues of local schools.
According to industry analysts the cost for building an elementary school, on average in the Dallas area, runs about $93 for each square foot. ($/sq.ft.)
What did ours cost?
It's difficult to know. This district doesn't disclose detailed construction statistics. But we can easily see Texas standards for school size and estimate, based on the student capacity, what size the buildings SHOULD
be.
Texas standards for elementary school classrooms call for 36 sq. ft per student for grades pre-K thru first and 30 sq ft per student in higher elementary grades. Assume the more generous allowance for all grades of the Houston Elementary and stipulate the 660 “seat” capacity for that building. Then HSE should have 23,760 square feet in classroom area. Add the computer lab, science lab and library requirements of 40, 50, and 3 sq ft per student. That adds 61,380 sq. ft to the building. Add a gym for about 5000 sq ft. Add space for janitors, storage and miscellaneous, about another 10%. Round up. The building by standard ought to be about 100,000 sq ft. The cost of the building was about $11 Million. That’s $110 per square foot, or about 17 dollars per sq ft. higher than average for this area.
Or, if you follow the links you'll see that LISD schools cost more, by about 17 dollars per sq ft., than is average for this area.
Am I wrong? Prove it. Get the figures from Gallagher regarding actual costs and actual square footage, and do the math. Publish. "Get the facts," as Ellen Clark says.
You may have to file an Open Records Request, following up with the Attorney General, to get those facts. But go ahead. Facts are good things to get.
But onward! The industry source cited also reports average construction costs around DFW for a high school run about $100 sq. foot. The standards for a high school are 28 sq ft per student in classrooms, 36 sq ft per student in computer labs, 50 sq ft per student in science labs, a 7500 sq foot gym, and 3 sq ft per student for libraries, (with a 2800 sq ft minimum) The new high school is claimed to have infrastructure for 2800 students and classroom space for 2200. Do the math. Then add in another 10% space allowance again for the mop closets, etc. Round up to some convenient figure. Say 325, 000 sq ft for the high school.
Now, to obtain the costs. How do we distinguish the costs of the academic facilities from the sports arena deal in Lancaster? I propose we start by looking at DISD’s Jesse Owens Athletic complex on Polk Avenue. (The Dallas ISD, unlike Lancaster ISD, actually publishes their costs and facility statistics.) The Owens sports complex, designed by HKS architectural group and constructed by Turner Construction company, seats 12,000 in the stadium and 7500 in the fieldhouse. In other words, it's bigger than Lancaster's. The costs of the Owens complex were $38.7 Million. If ours cost the same, (meaning LISD spent more on the stadium than the school, which they have so far been unwilling to admit) and since the overall LISD HS project cost $73 million; then our high school building itself cost $34.3 million. Round down. Do the math. $34 Million into 325,000 square foot is $104.6 dollars per square foot.
By this estimate our High School costs are 4 percent higher than average for our market. Am I wrong? Prove it. Get the facts.
Let me point out something else. If I AM wrong about the cost of the stadium -- if our new Tiger Stadium cost less than $38 million -- then the cost per square foot of our school building is even more exorbitant. But I'm estimating too much for the cost of the high school; then it follows that the district DID choose to spend more and place a higher priority on their athletic facilities than academics. (the stadium was built one year faster than the school, too.
Which error of mine puts the district's planning and priorities into anything resembling a positive light? That they spent too much? Or that they put sports first? I cheerfully admit one or another of my own errors. What does the district confess to?
According to industry analysts the cost for building an elementary school, on average in the Dallas area, runs about $93 for each square foot. ($/sq.ft.)
What did ours cost?
It's difficult to know. This district doesn't disclose detailed construction statistics. But we can easily see Texas standards for school size and estimate, based on the student capacity, what size the buildings SHOULD
be.
Texas standards for elementary school classrooms call for 36 sq. ft per student for grades pre-K thru first and 30 sq ft per student in higher elementary grades. Assume the more generous allowance for all grades of the Houston Elementary and stipulate the 660 “seat” capacity for that building. Then HSE should have 23,760 square feet in classroom area. Add the computer lab, science lab and library requirements of 40, 50, and 3 sq ft per student. That adds 61,380 sq. ft to the building. Add a gym for about 5000 sq ft. Add space for janitors, storage and miscellaneous, about another 10%. Round up. The building by standard ought to be about 100,000 sq ft. The cost of the building was about $11 Million. That’s $110 per square foot, or about 17 dollars per sq ft. higher than average for this area.
Or, if you follow the links you'll see that LISD schools cost more, by about 17 dollars per sq ft., than is average for this area.
Am I wrong? Prove it. Get the figures from Gallagher regarding actual costs and actual square footage, and do the math. Publish. "Get the facts," as Ellen Clark says.
You may have to file an Open Records Request, following up with the Attorney General, to get those facts. But go ahead. Facts are good things to get.
But onward! The industry source cited also reports average construction costs around DFW for a high school run about $100 sq. foot. The standards for a high school are 28 sq ft per student in classrooms, 36 sq ft per student in computer labs, 50 sq ft per student in science labs, a 7500 sq foot gym, and 3 sq ft per student for libraries, (with a 2800 sq ft minimum) The new high school is claimed to have infrastructure for 2800 students and classroom space for 2200. Do the math. Then add in another 10% space allowance again for the mop closets, etc. Round up to some convenient figure. Say 325, 000 sq ft for the high school.
Now, to obtain the costs. How do we distinguish the costs of the academic facilities from the sports arena deal in Lancaster? I propose we start by looking at DISD’s Jesse Owens Athletic complex on Polk Avenue. (The Dallas ISD, unlike Lancaster ISD, actually publishes their costs and facility statistics.) The Owens sports complex, designed by HKS architectural group and constructed by Turner Construction company, seats 12,000 in the stadium and 7500 in the fieldhouse. In other words, it's bigger than Lancaster's. The costs of the Owens complex were $38.7 Million. If ours cost the same, (meaning LISD spent more on the stadium than the school, which they have so far been unwilling to admit) and since the overall LISD HS project cost $73 million; then our high school building itself cost $34.3 million. Round down. Do the math. $34 Million into 325,000 square foot is $104.6 dollars per square foot.
By this estimate our High School costs are 4 percent higher than average for our market. Am I wrong? Prove it. Get the facts.
Let me point out something else. If I AM wrong about the cost of the stadium -- if our new Tiger Stadium cost less than $38 million -- then the cost per square foot of our school building is even more exorbitant. But I'm estimating too much for the cost of the high school; then it follows that the district DID choose to spend more and place a higher priority on their athletic facilities than academics. (the stadium was built one year faster than the school, too.
Which error of mine puts the district's planning and priorities into anything resembling a positive light? That they spent too much? Or that they put sports first? I cheerfully admit one or another of my own errors. What does the district confess to?
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
For readers who would rather talk about Iraq than Lancaster:
When Dick Cheney convened a council of advisors on national energy policy that included Exxon for oil and ArcherDanielMidlands for ethanol/biodiesel, but excluded Armory Lovins' conservationist
"nega-watt" companies, critics howled. Correctly. Politicians should have a range of choices on the table to select from. Advice may be ignored -- after it's given. But excluding advisors is wrong, and critics were right to howl about it. So how come a local administration that only gets advice from one financial advisor gets a pass? In 2003 the LISD sought out not only financial opinions from RBC, but Bank of America and Nathan McClellan (who is also a non-Lancaster voter, but oh well.) More recently, however, the only voice allowed in council is Matt Boles's. What's changed since 2003? And can a journalist for a small weekly newspaper with a circulation of under two thousand can crack the Dick Cheney and Exxon problem, when the New York Times could not? Or is it possible that limited efforts and resources might be better directed into a local investigation?
When Halliburton and Kellogg, Brown, and Root undertake to build a school in Iraq under "cost plus" federal contracts -- which guarantee that H/KBR makes a profit however past schedule or however much
over budget that school construction projects run -- critics howl. Correctly. "Cost plus" contracts are an invitation to waste, abuse, and "scope creep". The mere mention of the name Halliburton is synonymous in some circles with financial hemorrhage. But federal "cost plus" contracts are legal, however unwise, and the only
recourse the public has to correct the problem is to rely on the press to bring the abuses to light, and for the contractors to react from embarrassment. Why, then, should a local construction company operating under Texas law of "agency" (as opposed to "at-risk") contract management be expected to be any more careful of public money than Halliburton? And why would a local journalist sneer at KBR and turn a blind eye to Gallagher? Think globally, sure. But act locally.
When Ahmed Chalabi of the “Iraqi National Congress” shared his visions of raising a liberation army of Iraqi refugees and leading it into battle like some 21st-century version ofCharles DeGaulle rescuing France – well, critics howled. Correctly. Only idiots believed in Chalabi’s delusion of turning his rag-tag over-aged, overweight, under-trained lackeys into a fighting force. And after the actual liberation, when Chalabi again pushed himself forward for a second bite at the apple, proposing himself as (by special appointment of the United States) the new President of the newly “democratic” Iraq, well, it was altogether right and appropriate to take a quick look back at how well his grandiose visions of the prior few years had actually turned out. Shouldn’t all such visionaries and dreamers, even those with degrees in architecture and design, be similarly scrutinized? Or should companies like Corgan, Inc, be ignored in the media, when they make their second grab at the apple, because their intentions are so admirable? Why should any critical thinker attempt to be consistent between the local and the international? Integrity, maybe?
Millionaire master of journalists Eason Jordan revealed, after Saddam Hussein was deposed, that his CNN investigators had learned of terrifying and horrid acts by the regime that they had never published. Publication, Jordan explained, would have resulted in CNN being kicked out of Iraq, and possibly their sources, guides, interpreters and
friends being jailed, tortured, or killed. Critics howled. They called Jordan a hypocrite, an accomplice to terror, a traitor, an elitist sycophant who’d rather keep a seat at a murderer’s banquet than expose truth… Few of those critics acknowledged that Eason was certainly correct in his claim that confronting Saddam Hussein would have put innocent lives in imminent danger.
On the other hand, very few progressive journalists of the William Allen White variety actually face death for speaking (or writing) truth to what -- in Emporia, Kansas or Lancaster, Texas -- attempts to pass for power. When such a local scandal becomes known, and goes unpublished – well, there are other reasons than a lack of patriotism.
When Dick Cheney convened a council of advisors on national energy policy that included Exxon for oil and ArcherDanielMidlands for ethanol/biodiesel, but excluded Armory Lovins' conservationist
"nega-watt" companies, critics howled. Correctly. Politicians should have a range of choices on the table to select from. Advice may be ignored -- after it's given. But excluding advisors is wrong, and critics were right to howl about it. So how come a local administration that only gets advice from one financial advisor gets a pass? In 2003 the LISD sought out not only financial opinions from RBC, but Bank of America and Nathan McClellan (who is also a non-Lancaster voter, but oh well.) More recently, however, the only voice allowed in council is Matt Boles's. What's changed since 2003? And can a journalist for a small weekly newspaper with a circulation of under two thousand can crack the Dick Cheney and Exxon problem, when the New York Times could not? Or is it possible that limited efforts and resources might be better directed into a local investigation?
When Halliburton and Kellogg, Brown, and Root undertake to build a school in Iraq under "cost plus" federal contracts -- which guarantee that H/KBR makes a profit however past schedule or however much
over budget that school construction projects run -- critics howl. Correctly. "Cost plus" contracts are an invitation to waste, abuse, and "scope creep". The mere mention of the name Halliburton is synonymous in some circles with financial hemorrhage. But federal "cost plus" contracts are legal, however unwise, and the only
recourse the public has to correct the problem is to rely on the press to bring the abuses to light, and for the contractors to react from embarrassment. Why, then, should a local construction company operating under Texas law of "agency" (as opposed to "at-risk") contract management be expected to be any more careful of public money than Halliburton? And why would a local journalist sneer at KBR and turn a blind eye to Gallagher? Think globally, sure. But act locally.
When Ahmed Chalabi of the “Iraqi National Congress” shared his visions of raising a liberation army of Iraqi refugees and leading it into battle like some 21st-century version ofCharles DeGaulle rescuing France – well, critics howled. Correctly. Only idiots believed in Chalabi’s delusion of turning his rag-tag over-aged, overweight, under-trained lackeys into a fighting force. And after the actual liberation, when Chalabi again pushed himself forward for a second bite at the apple, proposing himself as (by special appointment of the United States) the new President of the newly “democratic” Iraq, well, it was altogether right and appropriate to take a quick look back at how well his grandiose visions of the prior few years had actually turned out. Shouldn’t all such visionaries and dreamers, even those with degrees in architecture and design, be similarly scrutinized? Or should companies like Corgan, Inc, be ignored in the media, when they make their second grab at the apple, because their intentions are so admirable? Why should any critical thinker attempt to be consistent between the local and the international? Integrity, maybe?
Millionaire master of journalists Eason Jordan revealed, after Saddam Hussein was deposed, that his CNN investigators had learned of terrifying and horrid acts by the regime that they had never published. Publication, Jordan explained, would have resulted in CNN being kicked out of Iraq, and possibly their sources, guides, interpreters and
friends being jailed, tortured, or killed. Critics howled. They called Jordan a hypocrite, an accomplice to terror, a traitor, an elitist sycophant who’d rather keep a seat at a murderer’s banquet than expose truth… Few of those critics acknowledged that Eason was certainly correct in his claim that confronting Saddam Hussein would have put innocent lives in imminent danger.
On the other hand, very few progressive journalists of the William Allen White variety actually face death for speaking (or writing) truth to what -- in Emporia, Kansas or Lancaster, Texas -- attempts to pass for power. When such a local scandal becomes known, and goes unpublished – well, there are other reasons than a lack of patriotism.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
A reader writes:
Before you consider voting "YES" to the LISD 2006 Bond Package, and if you haven't done so already, please check out the above site which posts an article written by our very own Jeff Melcher of Meadowview. The LISD Bond Package approved in 2004 should have rendered the citizens of Lancaster a lot more than what my eyes see. I refuse to continue to give money to "the powers that be" to do with what they will. The few "building" activities that I do see, just don't add up to what could have been, if the funds were properly spent. I do not see and have not seen any significant improvements to Lancaster's streets (infrastructure) since my relocation to Lancaster in 2003. As a matter of fact, property taxes increased -- Trash, sewer and water fees increased and the services and amenities have DECREASED. When riding around the city it is very difficult to tell that we employ Animal Control Oficers or Code Enforcement & Inspections personnel. Why is it that the city is allowing dogs to run around (unleashed) and homeowners to trash out their properties? Some homes, including Meadowview, have weeds growing up to their windowsills. It appears that Lancaster Road, Pleasant Run Road, and Beltline Road are the only roads that are receiving a "minimum" of attention from the city. A new traffic light, a few "very small trees" here and there along Pleasant Run are just not enough. The majority of the streets and roads within the city are bumpy, patched up asphalt-over dirt and are in need of repair.
Also, the two main roads, Lancaster & Houston School at I-20 will be bottled necked up with 18-wheeler traffic. The Houston School Road project was just poor judgement by our city Planning Board members. The 2006 Bond Package request is just rediculous, outrageous and unfounded. When we vote YES to increase our property and sales taxes for city improvements, those taxes are collected FOREVER. WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE "Maximum" IMPROVEMENTS for our money. The city council members and city planning board act and treat us as though we do not have a right to KNOW how our taxes dollars are being allocated and spent and who is receiving those benefits. We need to hold these individuals accountable to US. Take a closer look at the Capital Improvement (school funding) $62,700,000 request. Why is so much money being allocated to school remodelings (tear downs) and improvements (temp. trailers)? What about qualified teachers and personnel. What good are the new and improved buildings if the children are being taught by substitute teachers. receiving poor classroom instruction. Who are the contractors? Are any of those contractors African Americans? Who approves and reviews the funds (checks) written to fund the projects?
Jannette M. Gosha
Meadowview
Thanks, Jannette
I'd like to come back to the question of which of the LISD contractors are small, minority, and women-0wned businesses (SMWB) in just a little bit. (You may be surprised.) But it is true that the Dallas district set measurable goals for SMWB contractors and exceeded those goals. LISD has, as far as I can determine, neither set such goals nor published the percentage moneys so spent.
Makes you wonder why, doesn't it?
Before you consider voting "YES" to the LISD 2006 Bond Package, and if you haven't done so already, please check out the above site which posts an article written by our very own Jeff Melcher of Meadowview. The LISD Bond Package approved in 2004 should have rendered the citizens of Lancaster a lot more than what my eyes see. I refuse to continue to give money to "the powers that be" to do with what they will. The few "building" activities that I do see, just don't add up to what could have been, if the funds were properly spent. I do not see and have not seen any significant improvements to Lancaster's streets (infrastructure) since my relocation to Lancaster in 2003. As a matter of fact, property taxes increased -- Trash, sewer and water fees increased and the services and amenities have DECREASED. When riding around the city it is very difficult to tell that we employ Animal Control Oficers or Code Enforcement & Inspections personnel. Why is it that the city is allowing dogs to run around (unleashed) and homeowners to trash out their properties? Some homes, including Meadowview, have weeds growing up to their windowsills. It appears that Lancaster Road, Pleasant Run Road, and Beltline Road are the only roads that are receiving a "minimum" of attention from the city. A new traffic light, a few "very small trees" here and there along Pleasant Run are just not enough. The majority of the streets and roads within the city are bumpy, patched up asphalt-over dirt and are in need of repair.
Also, the two main roads, Lancaster & Houston School at I-20 will be bottled necked up with 18-wheeler traffic. The Houston School Road project was just poor judgement by our city Planning Board members. The 2006 Bond Package request is just rediculous, outrageous and unfounded. When we vote YES to increase our property and sales taxes for city improvements, those taxes are collected FOREVER. WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE "Maximum" IMPROVEMENTS for our money. The city council members and city planning board act and treat us as though we do not have a right to KNOW how our taxes dollars are being allocated and spent and who is receiving those benefits. We need to hold these individuals accountable to US. Take a closer look at the Capital Improvement (school funding) $62,700,000 request. Why is so much money being allocated to school remodelings (tear downs) and improvements (temp. trailers)? What about qualified teachers and personnel. What good are the new and improved buildings if the children are being taught by substitute teachers. receiving poor classroom instruction. Who are the contractors? Are any of those contractors African Americans? Who approves and reviews the funds (checks) written to fund the projects?
Jannette M. Gosha
Meadowview
Thanks, Jannette
I'd like to come back to the question of which of the LISD contractors are small, minority, and women-0wned businesses (SMWB) in just a little bit. (You may be surprised.) But it is true that the Dallas district set measurable goals for SMWB contractors and exceeded those goals. LISD has, as far as I can determine, neither set such goals nor published the percentage moneys so spent.
Makes you wonder why, doesn't it?
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Fight Property Taxes.
(Aside from voting to hold down school tax rates...)
Check out the Dallas Morning News' columnist "Ben Dover" and his recommendations about claiming property tax exemptions, reducing appraisals, and other ways of "fighting back".
(This is last year's article but the general advice applies.)
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Try this.
(The site I'm pointing you to used "Active" controls so I can't just link to it. )
Print these instructions or copy them to notepad, so you can refer back to them.
Set your browser to www.corgan.com
Near the upper right, click on "PORTFOLIO"
On the new line that appears just below that, click on "EDUCATION"
Okay, with me so far? Now, over on the left, in a yellow box, click on
the line that says: BOND PLANNING / ASSISTANCE
The first (best?) example of this Architectural Firm's powers to influence
voters to support school construction projects is Lancaster ISD. See the
samples of the 2004 Bond campaign website.
Now look over to the right, in the grey box. SERVICES RENDERED
(to Lancaster ISD in 2004? )
-- Bond Program Development
-- Educational Specifications
-- Scheduling
-- Program Implementation
-- Public Relations
-- Bond Promotion.
Okay. you've seen it all? Come back to www.LISD-Rackets.blogspot.com and let's talk.
Now, There Is Nothing Illegal About This. Corgan can do any or all of this and there's no law one way or the other.
Just asking, though. Do you WANT an architectural design firm to set the specificiations for your district's educational programs? (Wouldn't teachers be better at that? )
Are the companies that stand to make millions of dollars in design fees disinterested and objective experts looking to minimize expenses on a Bond Program. Or maybe, just maybe, might they be inclined to pump up the scope of the projects a bit?
Are a private company's "Public Relations" campaigns on bond issue covered by election ethics guidelines? That is, are their publications "informational" like the schools, or "advocacy" -- like this site?
I mean, they can DO it -- but aren't they supposed to put their name on it and admit what they're doing?
(The site I'm pointing you to used "Active" controls so I can't just link to it. )
Print these instructions or copy them to notepad, so you can refer back to them.
Set your browser to www.corgan.com
Near the upper right, click on "PORTFOLIO"
On the new line that appears just below that, click on "EDUCATION"
Okay, with me so far? Now, over on the left, in a yellow box, click on
the line that says: BOND PLANNING / ASSISTANCE
The first (best?) example of this Architectural Firm's powers to influence
voters to support school construction projects is Lancaster ISD. See the
samples of the 2004 Bond campaign website.
Now look over to the right, in the grey box. SERVICES RENDERED
(to Lancaster ISD in 2004? )
-- Bond Program Development
-- Educational Specifications
-- Scheduling
-- Program Implementation
-- Public Relations
-- Bond Promotion.
Okay. you've seen it all? Come back to www.LISD-Rackets.blogspot.com and let's talk.
Now, There Is Nothing Illegal About This. Corgan can do any or all of this and there's no law one way or the other.
Just asking, though. Do you WANT an architectural design firm to set the specificiations for your district's educational programs? (Wouldn't teachers be better at that? )
Are the companies that stand to make millions of dollars in design fees disinterested and objective experts looking to minimize expenses on a Bond Program. Or maybe, just maybe, might they be inclined to pump up the scope of the projects a bit?
Are a private company's "Public Relations" campaigns on bond issue covered by election ethics guidelines? That is, are their publications "informational" like the schools, or "advocacy" -- like this site?
I mean, they can DO it -- but aren't they supposed to put their name on it and admit what they're doing?