Teacher Certification
Is the teacher at the front of your child’s classroom certified for that subject? Do you have an English teacher attempting to struggle thru algebra? Is the history teacher rally a coach? Or does your child benefit from a certified master math teacher who’ll introduce the joys of geometry?
How do you find out?
If you know the teachers first and last name, you can pull up Texas state certification records!
Point your web-browser to this site:
https://secure.sbec.state.tx.us/SBECONLINE/virtcert.asp
Type in Last name, then First name, then initial if you know it.
If you can’t get an exact match on the certification database, you’ll get a list of up to 20 nearly identical names. Scan the list and see if you can spot your child’s teacher. Then click on an individual name to see what credentials are on file with the Texas State Board of Education.
What do you do if your child’s teacher is NOT certified in the subject?
Start by phoning the school principal … and we’ll discuss other corrections as we go along.
At the Lancaster School Board meeting last night, one parent revealed that since the start of school -- three weeks ago -- his 3rd grader's class has been taught by a "substitute". Not that the substitute isn't credentialed. But that concern reveals how short of great, and permanent, staffing the district still is.
If you have any concerns at all -- check it out.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Monday, September 04, 2006
Plan B?
Poor teachers, who see a child’s disappointing test scores, simply schedule a "make-up" test. They tell themselves their student hadn’t been paying attention; the student was having an off day; the student suffered from outside distractions. Poor teachers dismiss low numbers as accidental and temporary. So, the child is tested again. And if necessary again. Until by repetition or practice or good luck, the numbers come out higher. Then THOSE scores are meaningful, official, and final. If not, well, a poor teacher’s attitude is "Tough luck, kid."
A great teacher, though, will study the results of a poor test; to learn and adapt. Great teachers know students may fail to learn, but teachers, too, may, fail to teach. Great teachers understand no one can succeed by merely "going through the motions" again and again and again. For a student who hasn’t learned from lecture; a reading assignment may work or a hands-on project.may break though. A teacher who wants different results will teach a different way. And this is no hardship; great teachers always have more than one lesson plan in the portfolio. Every test – good results or bad – provides meaningful direction towards helping a child.
Lancaster ISD has some great teachers. But does the district have a great school board, and a great superintendent?
When the numbers from the May ’06 Bond Election came in, and the $93 Million bond proposal had failed, would the district demonstrate greatness? Or would they treat adult voters and taxpayers as slightly stupid children who failed to pay attention, got fatally distracted by noise, and were just suffering from an off day?
Now we know.
Why can't the district offer a new plan for putting children first? Why must they simply change the dates on the old plan and try another bond, another massive construction project, another tax increase, and another slick and glossy political indoctrination campaign in another election? Why is "Plan B" the same as "Plan A" ? Can't our district have, like a great teacher, more than one plan in its portfolio?
Why must the district continue to propose tearing down the elementary schools where children are safely and productively attending this year? Why does the district continue to demand the design of large (600-or-more students each) elementary schools, farther apart, instead of small neighborhood schools our kids can walk to? Why can't the district renovate existing schools, build small new schools inside the new neighborhoods, and get focused on first-graders?
At the high school level, why does the district come back for the third time in two years asking to construct additional classrooms? Can't Advanced Placement/college level classes be "outsourced" to dual-diploma programs at Cedar Valley or Richland College? Will the district continue to let new classrooms sit idle 18 hours a day or emulate Dallas ISD and try a voluntary second shift in the late afternoons? Will the district attempt to re-invent technology solutions for itself or cooperate with the TEA Region Ten "Virtual Academy" programs – which only require kids in a classroom two days a week? And why can a century old High School be sucessfully renovated to plush offices for adminstrative staff, but 40-year-old elementary school buildings must be completely demolished and replaced? Why not move high school students to Centre Street? Why not move adminstrators to the Dallas Ave/Pleasant Run facility that (contrary to promises made in 2004) still hasn't sold to a commercial developer.
Whether an additional High School is at Centre Street or in new construction -- will academics finally matter? Or will SAT continue to slide and graduation rates continue to fall? Will over 30% of the 9th graders entering the school this year flunk, quit, or quietly "disappear" before graduation?
Can't new Trustee Marie Elliott bring new ideas, new direction, and new energy to the Lancaster ISD school board? Must she, like her peers, always "go along to get along"?
In May 2006 , the voters spoke. The numbers are recorded, and the bond failed. Isn't it time for Plan B?
*sigh*.
Plan A. Again. Borrow and Spend. Just keep voting until the voters get it "right".
Oh well. Maybe, in December, we can hear Plan B.
Poor teachers, who see a child’s disappointing test scores, simply schedule a "make-up" test. They tell themselves their student hadn’t been paying attention; the student was having an off day; the student suffered from outside distractions. Poor teachers dismiss low numbers as accidental and temporary. So, the child is tested again. And if necessary again. Until by repetition or practice or good luck, the numbers come out higher. Then THOSE scores are meaningful, official, and final. If not, well, a poor teacher’s attitude is "Tough luck, kid."
A great teacher, though, will study the results of a poor test; to learn and adapt. Great teachers know students may fail to learn, but teachers, too, may, fail to teach. Great teachers understand no one can succeed by merely "going through the motions" again and again and again. For a student who hasn’t learned from lecture; a reading assignment may work or a hands-on project.may break though. A teacher who wants different results will teach a different way. And this is no hardship; great teachers always have more than one lesson plan in the portfolio. Every test – good results or bad – provides meaningful direction towards helping a child.
Lancaster ISD has some great teachers. But does the district have a great school board, and a great superintendent?
When the numbers from the May ’06 Bond Election came in, and the $93 Million bond proposal had failed, would the district demonstrate greatness? Or would they treat adult voters and taxpayers as slightly stupid children who failed to pay attention, got fatally distracted by noise, and were just suffering from an off day?
Now we know.
Why can't the district offer a new plan for putting children first? Why must they simply change the dates on the old plan and try another bond, another massive construction project, another tax increase, and another slick and glossy political indoctrination campaign in another election? Why is "Plan B" the same as "Plan A" ? Can't our district have, like a great teacher, more than one plan in its portfolio?
Why must the district continue to propose tearing down the elementary schools where children are safely and productively attending this year? Why does the district continue to demand the design of large (600-or-more students each) elementary schools, farther apart, instead of small neighborhood schools our kids can walk to? Why can't the district renovate existing schools, build small new schools inside the new neighborhoods, and get focused on first-graders?
At the high school level, why does the district come back for the third time in two years asking to construct additional classrooms? Can't Advanced Placement/college level classes be "outsourced" to dual-diploma programs at Cedar Valley or Richland College? Will the district continue to let new classrooms sit idle 18 hours a day or emulate Dallas ISD and try a voluntary second shift in the late afternoons? Will the district attempt to re-invent technology solutions for itself or cooperate with the TEA Region Ten "Virtual Academy" programs – which only require kids in a classroom two days a week? And why can a century old High School be sucessfully renovated to plush offices for adminstrative staff, but 40-year-old elementary school buildings must be completely demolished and replaced? Why not move high school students to Centre Street? Why not move adminstrators to the Dallas Ave/Pleasant Run facility that (contrary to promises made in 2004) still hasn't sold to a commercial developer.
Whether an additional High School is at Centre Street or in new construction -- will academics finally matter? Or will SAT continue to slide and graduation rates continue to fall? Will over 30% of the 9th graders entering the school this year flunk, quit, or quietly "disappear" before graduation?
Can't new Trustee Marie Elliott bring new ideas, new direction, and new energy to the Lancaster ISD school board? Must she, like her peers, always "go along to get along"?
In May 2006 , the voters spoke. The numbers are recorded, and the bond failed. Isn't it time for Plan B?
*sigh*.
Plan A. Again. Borrow and Spend. Just keep voting until the voters get it "right".
Oh well. Maybe, in December, we can hear Plan B.
Are Lancaster test scores better or worse than 4 years ago?
Bacause the state revises the "passing" standard from year to year, it can be difficult to make a direct comparison.
But it's not too difficult. Although Lancaster ISD website only reports ver little about its scores the Texas Education Agency retains test scores back to 1993 at their website .
Also, the state compares each measure for our district to the Dallas/Fort Worth vicinity ("Region 10") and the state of Texas as a whole. This allows us to compare Lancaster scores to the region and state scores -- even when the test standards change. For a simple example, if the passing rate for "all tests" over "all grades" in any given year was "40%" for the State of Texas and "42%" for Region 10, while the Lancaster ISD score was "39%" we could see that the district is performing comparably to, although slightly more poorly than, our peers in other districts. If the following year the same sort of score were shown as "50%" "49%" and "42%" we might conclude that even though LISD test scores were "up" from the prior year, our district was "falling behind" compared to our peers.
The table below shows the changing scores for "all tests" over "all grades'" * for the period of the 2004-05 school year, back through the recent years of Dr Lewis's tenure, for the past dozen years. The first column is the state's passing rate, the second is the passing rate for the region, and the third is the passing rate for LISD. The fouth column divides the LISD passing rate to the smaller of the region or state rate of the same year. (By comparing our rate to the lesser of the two other values we give LISD the best possible comparison score.)
This chart indicates that a dozen years ago the LISD TASS scores were
within 10% of scores of neighboring school systems. But between 1994 and 2002,. though the actual comparison drifted up and down, LISD compared slightly less well -- about 20% more poorly than our neighbors. But beginning in 2003, the first year of Dr Lewis's administration, our comparison to the state and region dropped sharply. We fell from over 80% comparable in 1998 to just over 60% in 2003, and fell further to about 50% comparable in the two years following.
It's possible this is a statistical anomaly, so the AEIS data on SAT and ACT scores for high school students should be reviewed as a "sanity check". The following tables again shows state and region scores by year and local district scores for the same year and calculates a ratio for comparison.
We see the same sort of decline in High School
test scores as we see in state TASS and TAKS tests.
A dozen years ago, scores were comparable if
slightly lower. The past couple of years under
Dr Lewis, the scores have declined.
Dr Lewis invites those who disagree with his reported numbers to sit down with him one on one to discuss. I hope the parents of the district will check out the TEA website and gather their own data for the grade levels of their own children and schedule just such a meeting.
Bacause the state revises the "passing" standard from year to year, it can be difficult to make a direct comparison.
But it's not too difficult. Although Lancaster ISD website only reports ver little about its scores the Texas Education Agency retains test scores back to 1993 at their website .
Also, the state compares each measure for our district to the Dallas/Fort Worth vicinity ("Region 10") and the state of Texas as a whole. This allows us to compare Lancaster scores to the region and state scores -- even when the test standards change. For a simple example, if the passing rate for "all tests" over "all grades" in any given year was "40%" for the State of Texas and "42%" for Region 10, while the Lancaster ISD score was "39%" we could see that the district is performing comparably to, although slightly more poorly than, our peers in other districts. If the following year the same sort of score were shown as "50%" "49%" and "42%" we might conclude that even though LISD test scores were "up" from the prior year, our district was "falling behind" compared to our peers.
The table below shows the changing scores for "all tests" over "all grades'" * for the period of the 2004-05 school year, back through the recent years of Dr Lewis's tenure, for the past dozen years. The first column is the state's passing rate, the second is the passing rate for the region, and the third is the passing rate for LISD. The fouth column divides the LISD passing rate to the smaller of the region or state rate of the same year. (By comparing our rate to the lesser of the two other values we give LISD the best possible comparison score.)
TAKS all tests, all Grades
Comparison
Year state reg LISD district/region
2005 62 64 34 54.84%
2004 58 60 31 53.45%
2003 58 60 36 62.07%
2002 85 84 73 86.90%
2001 82 81 71 87.65%
2000 80 78 66 84.62%
1999 80 78 66 84.62%
1998 78 78 64 82.05%
1997 73 74 58 79.45%
1996 73 73 64 87.67%
1995 61 65 54 88.52%
1994 56 60 52 92.86%
This chart indicates that a dozen years ago the LISD TASS scores were
within 10% of scores of neighboring school systems. But between 1994 and 2002,. though the actual comparison drifted up and down, LISD compared slightly less well -- about 20% more poorly than our neighbors. But beginning in 2003, the first year of Dr Lewis's administration, our comparison to the state and region dropped sharply. We fell from over 80% comparable in 1998 to just over 60% in 2003, and fell further to about 50% comparable in the two years following.
It's possible this is a statistical anomaly, so the AEIS data on SAT and ACT scores for high school students should be reviewed as a "sanity check". The following tables again shows state and region scores by year and local district scores for the same year and calculates a ratio for comparison.
HIGH SCHOOL SAT YEAR
MEAN SAT SCORE,
TEXAS Region 10 LISD district/region
2004 987 1008 802 81.26%
2003 989 1009 808 81.70%
2002 986 1009 847 85.90%
2001 987 1008 830 84.09%
2000 990 1012 888 89.70%
1999 989 1013 859 86.86%
1998 992 1016 913 92.04%
1997 992 1010 928 93.55%
1996 993 1011 985 99.19%
1995 993 1011 985 99.19%
1994 891 918 863 96.86%
We see the same sort of decline in High School
test scores as we see in state TASS and TAKS tests.
A dozen years ago, scores were comparable if
slightly lower. The past couple of years under
Dr Lewis, the scores have declined.
Dr Lewis invites those who disagree with his reported numbers to sit down with him one on one to discuss. I hope the parents of the district will check out the TEA website and gather their own data for the grade levels of their own children and schedule just such a meeting.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Football, or voting?
Dallas Progress asks a very important question.
Go read. Then, come back and tell me what you think.
Dallas Progress asks a very important question.
Go read. Then, come back and tell me what you think.
We all realize by now that the Lancaster District has hired Red Whiddon as a "facilitator" to help with the 2007 Bond election.
There is nothing illegal about this. The District can't advocate passage of a bond. That WOULD be illegal.
But they can facilitate.
Educate.
Inform.
Advise, promote, advertise, host community meetings, feed the voters sandwiches and softdrinks, distribute thousands of dollars worth of printed materials explaining how dire and desparate the need for more bond money RIGHT NOW is, explaining how stupid the (other) voters in the May 2006 election (who were in the majority) were, and how thoroughly the hundred million dollars in the February 2004 election have been squandered, (do I mean "squandered" or "invested" ? I get those words confused sometimes.). It's legal for the district to hire a handsome, calm, and professional-appearing spokesman to shake you firmly by the hand, look you squarely in the eye, and recite the careful script the district has laid before him. That's not advocacy.
It's not like the district was hanging signs on public right-of-ways along city streets or anything.
It's not like the district would use school resources to print flyers and district postage funds to flood your mailbox with ...
Oh.
Well, nevermind that.
The district does not do political advocacy. No schoold district would break Texas Law.
There is nothing illegal about any of this sort of bond package education or facilitating such meetings.
It's not illegal to hire a "facilitator" with a history of scope creep -- running up huge unanticipated expenses for overtime and hanging around for months after his service was supposed to be complete. And it's not illegal to bill a school district for hundreds of thousands of dollars more than they bargained for.
But will the district pay? As far as I can tell, the 2006-07 budget makes no provision for Mr Whiddon's fees -- fixed, inflated, overtime, bonus or otherwise.
And I haven't seen the minutes of a meeting where the Board of Trustees approved his contract. (I might have missed it. But a Google search of the LancasterISD.org website turns up zilch as of this evening.)
Why should the Trustees pay Mr Whiddon?
And for that matter, why should the Lancaster taxpayers?
There is nothing illegal about this. The District can't advocate passage of a bond. That WOULD be illegal.
But they can facilitate.
Educate.
Inform.
Advise, promote, advertise, host community meetings, feed the voters sandwiches and softdrinks, distribute thousands of dollars worth of printed materials explaining how dire and desparate the need for more bond money RIGHT NOW is, explaining how stupid the (other) voters in the May 2006 election (who were in the majority) were, and how thoroughly the hundred million dollars in the February 2004 election have been squandered, (do I mean "squandered" or "invested" ? I get those words confused sometimes.). It's legal for the district to hire a handsome, calm, and professional-appearing spokesman to shake you firmly by the hand, look you squarely in the eye, and recite the careful script the district has laid before him. That's not advocacy.
It's not like the district was hanging signs on public right-of-ways along city streets or anything.
It's not like the district would use school resources to print flyers and district postage funds to flood your mailbox with ...
Oh.
Well, nevermind that.
The district does not do political advocacy. No schoold district would break Texas Law.
There is nothing illegal about any of this sort of bond package education or facilitating such meetings.
It's not illegal to hire a "facilitator" with a history of scope creep -- running up huge unanticipated expenses for overtime and hanging around for months after his service was supposed to be complete. And it's not illegal to bill a school district for hundreds of thousands of dollars more than they bargained for.
But will the district pay? As far as I can tell, the 2006-07 budget makes no provision for Mr Whiddon's fees -- fixed, inflated, overtime, bonus or otherwise.
And I haven't seen the minutes of a meeting where the Board of Trustees approved his contract. (I might have missed it. But a Google search of the LancasterISD.org website turns up zilch as of this evening.)
Why should the Trustees pay Mr Whiddon?
And for that matter, why should the Lancaster taxpayers?
If the November, 2006 Bond Election fails; Does Red Whiddon get paid?
This question arises out of the 2006-07 Lancaster ISD budget. Lancaster Superintendent Larry Lewis deserves praise and credit for putting before the Trustees and the public perhaps the most detailed accounting of the district's expenses ever assembled. Two hundred twenty eight pages of detailed budget documents detailing everything from the $8,500 the district pays in wages to crossing guards to $381,898 paid in wages/salaries/and benefits to the Superintented himself.
But Red Whiddon's fees aren't apparent in that budget.
It may be that Mr Widdon's fees are, like the salary of "special assistant to the superintendent" Elvin Lotten, not being budgeted. Mr Lotten's salary used to be budgeted, under the superintendent's office. But this year, in a "cost cutting" move, Mr Lotten is not being paid by the district. Well, not exactly. Mr Lotten's salary is now coming out of the bond money. According to Dr Lewis, since Mr Lotten works full time on bond construction and accounting issues, it's appropriate that he be paid with bond funds.
Not that the engineer's annual salary was one of the things voters specifically approved in the 2004 election. Borrowing money for thirty years to pay for one year's salary wouldn't have been a very popular line item in that proposal ... but there's nothing illegal about it. And we need Mr Lotten's talent and expertise. And we have this 110 million dollar pot of money just lying around anyhow so why NOT pay him out of the bond funds?
Except -- well, Mr Whiddon tells us the 2004 bond money has all been spent. Not only spent, but WELL spent. $110 Million, spent, gone, under the bridge. Even the superintendent tells us the 2004 bond is over -- finished, three years ahead of schedule, he says.
A package being finished, and a package that's run out of funding, might be two slightly different things, but let's not quibble now.
The question is, if Mr Lotten is being paid his salary from an empty pocket -- a pocket of bond funds that has no funds -- is Mr Whiddon being paid from that same pocket?
Obviously if the 2006 bond election succeeds the pocket full of bond money will be bulging all over again. Then Mr Lotten can be paid, and can ever repay the pocket of teacher-salaries money or football-coach's money, or whatever other pocket has been supporting the empty bond pocket while the election has been being debated. If the election approves the bond, all is well for Mr Lotten. And presumably, even for Mr Whiddon.
But if the election fails, will Mr Whiddon find a pocket of district money to support all his time and efforts?
And if not, doesn't that sort of give him a MAJOR incentive to ensure that the bond passes?
And if he has such a huge incentive and personal financial stake in the outcome of the election -- how objective can he be?
This question arises out of the 2006-07 Lancaster ISD budget. Lancaster Superintendent Larry Lewis deserves praise and credit for putting before the Trustees and the public perhaps the most detailed accounting of the district's expenses ever assembled. Two hundred twenty eight pages of detailed budget documents detailing everything from the $8,500 the district pays in wages to crossing guards to $381,898 paid in wages/salaries/and benefits to the Superintented himself.
But Red Whiddon's fees aren't apparent in that budget.
It may be that Mr Widdon's fees are, like the salary of "special assistant to the superintendent" Elvin Lotten, not being budgeted. Mr Lotten's salary used to be budgeted, under the superintendent's office. But this year, in a "cost cutting" move, Mr Lotten is not being paid by the district. Well, not exactly. Mr Lotten's salary is now coming out of the bond money. According to Dr Lewis, since Mr Lotten works full time on bond construction and accounting issues, it's appropriate that he be paid with bond funds.
Not that the engineer's annual salary was one of the things voters specifically approved in the 2004 election. Borrowing money for thirty years to pay for one year's salary wouldn't have been a very popular line item in that proposal ... but there's nothing illegal about it. And we need Mr Lotten's talent and expertise. And we have this 110 million dollar pot of money just lying around anyhow so why NOT pay him out of the bond funds?
Except -- well, Mr Whiddon tells us the 2004 bond money has all been spent. Not only spent, but WELL spent. $110 Million, spent, gone, under the bridge. Even the superintendent tells us the 2004 bond is over -- finished, three years ahead of schedule, he says.
A package being finished, and a package that's run out of funding, might be two slightly different things, but let's not quibble now.
The question is, if Mr Lotten is being paid his salary from an empty pocket -- a pocket of bond funds that has no funds -- is Mr Whiddon being paid from that same pocket?
Obviously if the 2006 bond election succeeds the pocket full of bond money will be bulging all over again. Then Mr Lotten can be paid, and can ever repay the pocket of teacher-salaries money or football-coach's money, or whatever other pocket has been supporting the empty bond pocket while the election has been being debated. If the election approves the bond, all is well for Mr Lotten. And presumably, even for Mr Whiddon.
But if the election fails, will Mr Whiddon find a pocket of district money to support all his time and efforts?
And if not, doesn't that sort of give him a MAJOR incentive to ensure that the bond passes?
And if he has such a huge incentive and personal financial stake in the outcome of the election -- how objective can he be?
Friday, September 01, 2006
What was Red Whiddon; an auditor or an analyst?
I dunno.
Neither do you.
But let's assume that Red knows more about what he's doing than Dr Lewis. Red is the one who says he's (only) an analyst. What sorts of things could an analyst tell us about the 2004 Bond projects, and the money spent? (Not that every dollar spent is accounted for -- that WOULD be a job for an auditor. ) But just in general, what kind of thing might he be able to tell us, that we would like to know?
Well, what would you like to know?
Speaking for myself, I'd like to know about the bidding process.
According to the LISD Board of Director's minutes, even a well-run and fair bidding process does NOT mean that we got the lowest cost projects. Higher bidders could --and might even be expected to -- win the awarded contract. From the minutes November 12, 2003 (Page 1 )
Gallagher staff discussed the RFP process from going out for bids to opening bids and recommending a company to the Superintendent. Gallagher staff discussed that bids are opened in a public meeting -- not a Board Meeting. After reviewing the bids, Gallagher staff reviews the proposals, including the history of the companies and makes recommendation(s) to the Superintendent. Gallagher shared that sometimes the low bidder is not always the company recommended. In that scenario, Gallagher prepares a memorandum to the Superintendent stating why they believe the low bidder is not the best company. The
Superintendent then reviews the recommendation(s) from Gallagher and brings the best company to the Board to present and be approved. Discussions evolved about bringing several companies to present to just being presented with the best company. Dr.Lewis shared, as Superintendent his responsibility is to review all recommendations and
bring — the "best“ to Lancaster.
Okay, so I wish Mr Whiddon had told us of some hundreds of proposed jobs, how many were awarded to OTHER than the low bidder. If the number of jobs is J and the number of higher bids awarded is H, what's the percentage of H / J?
10% ?
30% ?
90% ?
I dunno.
Neither do you.
*sshhh* It's a secret. The District doesn't want you to know. Or so it seems.
Why?
Another question: How many of the High Winning Bids were from contractors closely associated with Gallagher Construction? Gallagher, as a company, is not only the project manager and in position to recommend awards, but was, after all, a bidder itself?
How many of the lower-but-losing bids were from minority-owned companies? Or woman-owned, or locally owned small businesses?
Was most of the Bond 2004 money diverted to rich corporation white guys from outside Lancaster? Or was it shared with Black, Hispanic and local small business?
I dunno.
Neither do you.
Red Whiddon, our analyst, didn't tell us.
I DO know that one local businessman who tried to bid on the project says the rules changed in the middle of the process.
Also from Lancaster IDS Board of Trustees minutes November 1, 2004 (Page 2 )
Citizen’s Communication Larry Jefferson, Sr., 507 Martindale, Lancaster, Texas
Mr. Jefferson also shared his concern about awarding of contracts, he stated that he bid on 2 jobs and felt the rules on bids changed.
I bet he said a lot more than wound up in the minutes, too.
Was the bidding fair? Were a significant fraction of the projects awarded to local contractors? Did the taxpayer get good value on the projects, as evidenced by the low bidders being awarded most contracts? Aren't these things you want to know?
Wouldn’t having such answers help you make up your mind about trusting the district with another $215 MILLION? ( Or is it $211 Million, and what’s a mere $4 Million discrepancy when it’s only taxpayers’ money we’re playing with?)
I sure wish some independent outsider could take a look at the overall 2004 bond projects and tell us how fairly it was spent.
That is, I wish some such person would do more than shake my hand, look me squarely in the eye, and recite the district’s script as written.
I dunno.
Neither do you.
But let's assume that Red knows more about what he's doing than Dr Lewis. Red is the one who says he's (only) an analyst. What sorts of things could an analyst tell us about the 2004 Bond projects, and the money spent? (Not that every dollar spent is accounted for -- that WOULD be a job for an auditor. ) But just in general, what kind of thing might he be able to tell us, that we would like to know?
Well, what would you like to know?
Speaking for myself, I'd like to know about the bidding process.
According to the LISD Board of Director's minutes, even a well-run and fair bidding process does NOT mean that we got the lowest cost projects. Higher bidders could --and might even be expected to -- win the awarded contract. From the minutes November 12, 2003 (Page 1 )
Gallagher staff discussed the RFP process from going out for bids to opening bids and recommending a company to the Superintendent. Gallagher staff discussed that bids are opened in a public meeting -- not a Board Meeting. After reviewing the bids, Gallagher staff reviews the proposals, including the history of the companies and makes recommendation(s) to the Superintendent. Gallagher shared that sometimes the low bidder is not always the company recommended. In that scenario, Gallagher prepares a memorandum to the Superintendent stating why they believe the low bidder is not the best company. The
Superintendent then reviews the recommendation(s) from Gallagher and brings the best company to the Board to present and be approved. Discussions evolved about bringing several companies to present to just being presented with the best company. Dr.Lewis shared, as Superintendent his responsibility is to review all recommendations and
bring — the "best“ to Lancaster.
Okay, so I wish Mr Whiddon had told us of some hundreds of proposed jobs, how many were awarded to OTHER than the low bidder. If the number of jobs is J and the number of higher bids awarded is H, what's the percentage of H / J?
10% ?
30% ?
90% ?
I dunno.
Neither do you.
*sshhh* It's a secret. The District doesn't want you to know. Or so it seems.
Why?
Another question: How many of the High Winning Bids were from contractors closely associated with Gallagher Construction? Gallagher, as a company, is not only the project manager and in position to recommend awards, but was, after all, a bidder itself?
How many of the lower-but-losing bids were from minority-owned companies? Or woman-owned, or locally owned small businesses?
Was most of the Bond 2004 money diverted to rich corporation white guys from outside Lancaster? Or was it shared with Black, Hispanic and local small business?
I dunno.
Neither do you.
Red Whiddon, our analyst, didn't tell us.
I DO know that one local businessman who tried to bid on the project says the rules changed in the middle of the process.
Also from Lancaster IDS Board of Trustees minutes November 1, 2004 (Page 2 )
Citizen’s Communication Larry Jefferson, Sr., 507 Martindale, Lancaster, Texas
Mr. Jefferson also shared his concern about awarding of contracts, he stated that he bid on 2 jobs and felt the rules on bids changed.
I bet he said a lot more than wound up in the minutes, too.
Was the bidding fair? Were a significant fraction of the projects awarded to local contractors? Did the taxpayer get good value on the projects, as evidenced by the low bidders being awarded most contracts? Aren't these things you want to know?
Wouldn’t having such answers help you make up your mind about trusting the district with another $215 MILLION? ( Or is it $211 Million, and what’s a mere $4 Million discrepancy when it’s only taxpayers’ money we’re playing with?)
I sure wish some independent outsider could take a look at the overall 2004 bond projects and tell us how fairly it was spent.
That is, I wish some such person would do more than shake my hand, look me squarely in the eye, and recite the district’s script as written.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Now Herb Booth of the Dallas Morning News has weighed in. According to Herb, the bond proposal is for $215 Million.
Steve Synder, you recall, reports it was "only" a $211 Million bond.
Anyhow. $211 Million or or $215 Million, it's BIG.
And fuzzy.
I was there. I think Herb is correct. I think Steve is carrying over a number from about 21st of August, before The School Business Group (of "scope creep" fame) added in buses, cop cars, and other vehicles to the bond package on the 28th of August. Or maybe some other $4 million dollar item was added to the wish list when Steve wasn't looking.
Gotta watch that creep. It sneaks up on you.
It'll be interesting to see what the good folks at Focus think the number should be.
Steve Synder, you recall, reports it was "only" a $211 Million bond.
Anyhow. $211 Million or or $215 Million, it's BIG.
And fuzzy.
I was there. I think Herb is correct. I think Steve is carrying over a number from about 21st of August, before The School Business Group (of "scope creep" fame) added in buses, cop cars, and other vehicles to the bond package on the 28th of August. Or maybe some other $4 million dollar item was added to the wish list when Steve wasn't looking.
Gotta watch that creep. It sneaks up on you.
It'll be interesting to see what the good folks at Focus think the number should be.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Well, the TODAY newspaper for 31 August is out. Top banner, front page: "Schools' $211 bond election on ballot".
But, you read it here first.
A few selected quotes from Steve Snyder's article, (Links tomorrow, when the on-line edition comes out.)
"... the bond committee was sold on the bond ... by an outside consultant, Phillip 'Red' Whiddon of The School Business Group."
"...Lewis then found Whiddon doing custodial and other out-sourcing work at the Keller School District..."
Right.
Allow me to provide some on what Mr Whiddon was doing to Keller ISD.
Dr Lewis says "We had an outside entity" -- Mr Whiddon -- "audit Gallagher, the Lancaster School District, Corgan and Associates..."
Right.
Mr Whiddon presented a power-point slide to the board reporting he had been hired to "analyze" the district's '04 bond project.
I am not a financial expert, but it seems to me that analysts are somewhat different than auditors. Analysts are the guys on the business news TV shows telling us to buy Enron. Auditors are the guys from the Security and Exchange Commission digging thru the remains trying to find out who pocketed the stolen money from Enron.
Mr Whiddon, as far as I know, is not an accountant. He's no doubt qualified, even over-qualified, to be run a school custodian's office. I'm not so confident he can figure out where the 2004 Bond money (some $110 million dollars) all went.
However that may be, Mr Whiddon reported to the Lancaster Board of Trustees that work left undone from the 2004 bond projects were the result of "the scope of work expanding". I heard Mr Whiddon introduce the expression "scope creep" to the board. (This is how a $65 Million dollar high school and stadium wind up costing $72 Million, or was it $74 Million, or was it...?)
Scope creep. Yes sir. We gotta watch that creep.
Mr Whiddon also presented a slide to Trustees claiming he had "facilitated" four meetings of the Bond Advisory Committtee.
He was including the Monday, 28 August Board of Trustees meeting among the four. Those of us on the committee might have counted him "facilitating" one committee meeting and attending two more. But who's counting? We already know Mr Whiddon is not hired to be picky about school districts' and their numbers.
Mr Whiddon says "Thank goodness the board didn't sink $4 Million into West Main and Pleasant Run, and instead held the money back."
Right.
Exactly where, in whose pocket, and for what, is that money being "held back", I wonder? If it even exists any more. Board member Carolyn Morris doesn't seem to think even one million of the original $110 is left, after the district has paid points to secure their "AAA" bond rating. But an auditor ( I mean analyst) like Mr Whiddon surely speaks truly and carefully about hold backs ...
Dr Lewis says he accepted the judgement of the (May) taxpayers. One trusts the November voters' opinions are equally welcome.
But, you read it here first.
A few selected quotes from Steve Snyder's article, (Links tomorrow, when the on-line edition comes out.)
"... the bond committee was sold on the bond ... by an outside consultant, Phillip 'Red' Whiddon of The School Business Group."
"...Lewis then found Whiddon doing custodial and other out-sourcing work at the Keller School District..."
Right.
Allow me to provide some on what Mr Whiddon was doing to Keller ISD.
Now a new company that trustees hired to move the maintenance department under district control says it expects the district to pay $285,170, almost twice as much as the $164,000 that the company and district officials originally agreed to.
Trustees learned of the cost overruns Feb. 10 in an informal report. The overruns were never mentioned in periodic maintenance reports that were shared with the school board.
According to the original contract, The School Business Group was to receive $84,000 for temporarily overseeing the maintenance department, which includes custodians, and grounds and maintenance workers. It was also to receive $80,000 for a comprehensive review of the maintenance department, including a plan for long-term improvements.
So far, the district has paid more than $154,000 to The School Business Group, largely for supervising maintenance. Company executive Philip "Red" Whiddon estimated that about 10 percent of the work on the comprehensive review has been completed. The district has received more bills, but has not paid them yet, Stone said.
Dr Lewis says "We had an outside entity" -- Mr Whiddon -- "audit Gallagher, the Lancaster School District, Corgan and Associates..."
Right.
Mr Whiddon presented a power-point slide to the board reporting he had been hired to "analyze" the district's '04 bond project.
I am not a financial expert, but it seems to me that analysts are somewhat different than auditors. Analysts are the guys on the business news TV shows telling us to buy Enron. Auditors are the guys from the Security and Exchange Commission digging thru the remains trying to find out who pocketed the stolen money from Enron.
Mr Whiddon, as far as I know, is not an accountant. He's no doubt qualified, even over-qualified, to be run a school custodian's office. I'm not so confident he can figure out where the 2004 Bond money (some $110 million dollars) all went.
However that may be, Mr Whiddon reported to the Lancaster Board of Trustees that work left undone from the 2004 bond projects were the result of "the scope of work expanding". I heard Mr Whiddon introduce the expression "scope creep" to the board. (This is how a $65 Million dollar high school and stadium wind up costing $72 Million, or was it $74 Million, or was it...?)
Scope creep. Yes sir. We gotta watch that creep.
Mr Whiddon also presented a slide to Trustees claiming he had "facilitated" four meetings of the Bond Advisory Committtee.
He was including the Monday, 28 August Board of Trustees meeting among the four. Those of us on the committee might have counted him "facilitating" one committee meeting and attending two more. But who's counting? We already know Mr Whiddon is not hired to be picky about school districts' and their numbers.
Mr Whiddon says "Thank goodness the board didn't sink $4 Million into West Main and Pleasant Run, and instead held the money back."
Right.
Exactly where, in whose pocket, and for what, is that money being "held back", I wonder? If it even exists any more. Board member Carolyn Morris doesn't seem to think even one million of the original $110 is left, after the district has paid points to secure their "AAA" bond rating. But an auditor ( I mean analyst) like Mr Whiddon surely speaks truly and carefully about hold backs ...
Dr Lewis says he accepted the judgement of the (May) taxpayers. One trusts the November voters' opinions are equally welcome.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Dr Lewis tells us the that the "demographic" * of Lancaster is such that our students and citizens are not very computer literate. He proposes to remedy that problem by assigning each student in the school district a laptop computer.
Well, maybe he's right about the kids (and even the adults) in Lancaster, Texas. There's probably not a whole lot of people who have computers, or e-mail accounts, or picture cell phones, I-pods, Palm PDAs or Blackberrries. Be lucky to have a pager, y'think?
Not.
Me, I'm thinkin' a whole lot of people 'round here have all that kind of tech tools. Blogs, even. So, let's see. How many people are interested to come make a little noise about the school district, and much money they spend, and how their test scores look, and what we ought to do about getting good classrooms and sharp teachers for all the kids?
If there's a bunch of folks talking about it, making a racket here, we'll know that the laptop-in-schools thing is just a thing.
And if we hear the crickets chirping, well, we'll know that too.
( * "Demographics" which are more than just the race or the income level or the home value or the age of the Lancaster population, but exactly what we are, that the word means, the good doctor does not exactly specify. )
Well, maybe he's right about the kids (and even the adults) in Lancaster, Texas. There's probably not a whole lot of people who have computers, or e-mail accounts, or picture cell phones, I-pods, Palm PDAs or Blackberrries. Be lucky to have a pager, y'think?
Not.
Me, I'm thinkin' a whole lot of people 'round here have all that kind of tech tools. Blogs, even. So, let's see. How many people are interested to come make a little noise about the school district, and much money they spend, and how their test scores look, and what we ought to do about getting good classrooms and sharp teachers for all the kids?
If there's a bunch of folks talking about it, making a racket here, we'll know that the laptop-in-schools thing is just a thing.
And if we hear the crickets chirping, well, we'll know that too.
( * "Demographics" which are more than just the race or the income level or the home value or the age of the Lancaster population, but exactly what we are, that the word means, the good doctor does not exactly specify. )