The 23 Sept " Dallas Morning News" reports that the following ISDs plan on raising the M&O tax rate:
Allen, Arlington, Birdville, Carrollton, Cedar Hill, Coppel, Denton, DeSoto, Fort Worth, Frisco, Grand Prairie, Grapevine, Hurst, Keller, Mansfield, McKinney, Mesquite, Royce City, Southlake.
The following promise NOT to raise the tax:
Dallas, Highland Park, Irving, Lewisville, Northwest, Plano, Richardson, Rockwall.
MISSING IN ACTION -- No news whatever either way:
Lancaster?
Now why do you suppose that is?
Surely the district has plans. Surely they wouldn't keep secrets.
Why don't they tell the newspaper?
Of course, this is the district that won't release news about "A" and "B" honor role students, either ...
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Let’s do some math. Pre-K math.
If the school system has about 400 students per grade, then about how many students are in the system? Assuming grades 1-12, that’s about 4800 students, right? And assume you want about 20 to 25 kids per classroom for each grade. That means you need between 16 to 20 classrooms per grade, times 12 grades to get an estimate of somewhere between 192 and 240 classrooms, right?
Now suppose you want to add a kindergarten. Can you figure out how many additional classrooms the system needs?
TRICK question! It depends on whether you want full day kindergarten – in which case you need another 20 classrooms for the extra 400 kids in grade “K” -- or whether you want the traditional half-day program. Traditionally, an elementary school might use the same classroom for two half-days, and so could add the 400 kindergarteners with only 10 new classrooms.
In more modern efforts and newly constructed schools, we see a push toward full day kindergarten, and so the system needs twice as many classrooms for K-graders as it used to.
And lately we’re seeing a big push for Pre-K programs. School for 4-year-old toddlers.
How many classrooms does the system have to build for 4-year-olds? Assume no population growth, no demographic bulge between the number of 4-year-olds from prior years and numbers of 6- or 10-year olds, and no difference in number of students per classroom. Did you figure on adding 20 new classrooms? Good for you!
That’s (partly) what’s been happening in Lancaster ISD lately. We’re seeing a LOT more pre-K students.
Did you know that classrooms for pre-K and K-level students cost more, each, than classrooms for first, second, on up to fourth graders? No?
We'll discuss why it costs more for a pre-K classroom in another post... (in other words, "to be continued" )
If the school system has about 400 students per grade, then about how many students are in the system? Assuming grades 1-12, that’s about 4800 students, right? And assume you want about 20 to 25 kids per classroom for each grade. That means you need between 16 to 20 classrooms per grade, times 12 grades to get an estimate of somewhere between 192 and 240 classrooms, right?
Now suppose you want to add a kindergarten. Can you figure out how many additional classrooms the system needs?
TRICK question! It depends on whether you want full day kindergarten – in which case you need another 20 classrooms for the extra 400 kids in grade “K” -- or whether you want the traditional half-day program. Traditionally, an elementary school might use the same classroom for two half-days, and so could add the 400 kindergarteners with only 10 new classrooms.
In more modern efforts and newly constructed schools, we see a push toward full day kindergarten, and so the system needs twice as many classrooms for K-graders as it used to.
And lately we’re seeing a big push for Pre-K programs. School for 4-year-old toddlers.
How many classrooms does the system have to build for 4-year-olds? Assume no population growth, no demographic bulge between the number of 4-year-olds from prior years and numbers of 6- or 10-year olds, and no difference in number of students per classroom. Did you figure on adding 20 new classrooms? Good for you!
That’s (partly) what’s been happening in Lancaster ISD lately. We’re seeing a LOT more pre-K students.
Did you know that classrooms for pre-K and K-level students cost more, each, than classrooms for first, second, on up to fourth graders? No?
We'll discuss why it costs more for a pre-K classroom in another post... (in other words, "to be continued" )
Friday, September 22, 2006
Sample Ballot on the Bond Proposal:
The language of the ballot will read:
"The Issuance of Bonds in the Amount of $215,000,000 for the Construction, Renovation, Acquistion, and Equipment of School Buildings and the Purchase of new School Buses and the Levying of the Tax in Payment Thereof."
( ) For
( ) Against.
I don't see anything explicit in that about laptops.
There's nothing in there about the 30 year repayment period, either.
If I torture the meaning of the phrase "for... the equipment of school buildings..." beyond all recognition I suppose that a general purpose "technology" project that STAYS PUT IN THE BUILDING could be construed as part of the bond proposal.
A few thousand inherently portable assets ... I'm not so sure.
If it's such a great idea to issue students laptops, why isn't that idea explicit on the ballot?
If it's legal to borrow money for thirty years for a bus or a computer, why isn't that loan period on the ballot?
Which schools are going to be renovated? (And aren't those the same schools that were supposed to be renovated with the 2004 bond money?)
How is this proposition specific enough to hold anybody accountable if plans changes and "Scope Creeps" in the next few years?
Are you comfortable being "for" such a proposal?
The language of the ballot will read:
"The Issuance of Bonds in the Amount of $215,000,000 for the Construction, Renovation, Acquistion, and Equipment of School Buildings and the Purchase of new School Buses and the Levying of the Tax in Payment Thereof."
( ) For
( ) Against.
I don't see anything explicit in that about laptops.
There's nothing in there about the 30 year repayment period, either.
If I torture the meaning of the phrase "for... the equipment of school buildings..." beyond all recognition I suppose that a general purpose "technology" project that STAYS PUT IN THE BUILDING could be construed as part of the bond proposal.
A few thousand inherently portable assets ... I'm not so sure.
If it's such a great idea to issue students laptops, why isn't that idea explicit on the ballot?
If it's legal to borrow money for thirty years for a bus or a computer, why isn't that loan period on the ballot?
Which schools are going to be renovated? (And aren't those the same schools that were supposed to be renovated with the 2004 bond money?)
How is this proposition specific enough to hold anybody accountable if plans changes and "Scope Creeps" in the next few years?
Are you comfortable being "for" such a proposal?
Thursday, September 21, 2006
While we're asking questions -- one more.
Houston Elementary cost about $11 Million. Maybe $15, by the time you figure in the cost of tearing down an old building and hauling the pieces away.
So we could build about 4 more just like it for less than the $62 million being called for (out of $215 Million) in phase one alone. We could build 4 new schools and have money left for a bus or two and a cop car or five.
Why aren't we voting to do that?
Why are we putting off constuction of elementary schools that we are assured are desparately needed until phase 2 and 3?
Why, if we are "bursting at the seams" and "stuffing kids into portables", are the phase 1 budget priorities anything other than classrooms?
Houston Elementary cost about $11 Million. Maybe $15, by the time you figure in the cost of tearing down an old building and hauling the pieces away.
So we could build about 4 more just like it for less than the $62 million being called for (out of $215 Million) in phase one alone. We could build 4 new schools and have money left for a bus or two and a cop car or five.
Why aren't we voting to do that?
Why are we putting off constuction of elementary schools that we are assured are desparately needed until phase 2 and 3?
Why, if we are "bursting at the seams" and "stuffing kids into portables", are the phase 1 budget priorities anything other than classrooms?
So we built a new high school with 2200 seats.
We built a new elementary school with 600 seats.
We built 2800 seats for $110 Million dollars.
We're out of money.
Enrollment is up by about 2000 students, between 2004 and today.
And instead of being 800 seats to the good, we're "bursting at the seams" and have to educate students in portables.
Anybody have any idea why?
We built a new elementary school with 600 seats.
We built 2800 seats for $110 Million dollars.
We're out of money.
Enrollment is up by about 2000 students, between 2004 and today.
And instead of being 800 seats to the good, we're "bursting at the seams" and have to educate students in portables.
Anybody have any idea why?
Anybody want to explain why the new Houston Elementary, with 600 slots or "seats" compared to the old building's 300 seats -- is still surrounded by portable classrooms?
When the district just TORE DOWN the 300-seat building last July?
Why are there portables in use at Pleasant Run Elementary when the 500 seats at the 4th Grade Center (used to be middle school) are ALL vacant this year?
Why are students in portables while the administrative staff uses the newly renovated Centre Street SCHOOL building as district HQ, while the old OFFICE building is vacant?
When the district just TORE DOWN the 300-seat building last July?
Why are there portables in use at Pleasant Run Elementary when the 500 seats at the 4th Grade Center (used to be middle school) are ALL vacant this year?
Why are students in portables while the administrative staff uses the newly renovated Centre Street SCHOOL building as district HQ, while the old OFFICE building is vacant?
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
The traditional elementary schools in Lancaster are set up to teach about 400 students each. Red Whiddon and the bond advisors from Gallagher Construction propose to make the new standard size for our elementary schools about 600 kids each.
According to The American School Board Journal :
Today, 25 percent of U.S. secondary schools enroll more than 1,000 students. Many researchers say that the appropriate size for an elementary school is from 300 to 400 students and that the enrollment of a secondary school should not exceed 800. … Small schools, on average, have fewer discipline problems, better student attendance rates, and fewer dropouts than large schools. Students who attend small schools have a greater sense of belonging than those who attend large schools; they are more likely to bond with their teachers and peers; and they more readily identify with their schools.
Terrence Stutz, writing in the Dallas Morning News, reported that:
Lower-income students in Texas and three other states have done better academically in smaller schools than in larger ones…The study conducted by education researchers at Ohio University and Marshall University found that school size is a significant factor in achievement levels for children from lower-income families. For Texas, the researchers looked at scores on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills to learn how much school size affected results. Test scores were analyzed from 6,288 schools in 960 districts - most districts in the state. "Many schools serving lower- and moderate-income communities in Texas are too large to achieve top student performance on the TAAS," the report concluded.
Full details here.
It makes more sense to rehabilitate the old schools to serve at the 300-400 student per school standard that they were designed for, and that researchers agree is the optimum size for a school. Kids in the tree-lined heart of our community can hike the less-than-two-miles along our shaded side walks and natural paths to the historic old buildings. And new schools serving new neighborhoods should also be small, located in the heart of the community, and accessible by walking.
According to The American School Board Journal :
Today, 25 percent of U.S. secondary schools enroll more than 1,000 students. Many researchers say that the appropriate size for an elementary school is from 300 to 400 students and that the enrollment of a secondary school should not exceed 800. … Small schools, on average, have fewer discipline problems, better student attendance rates, and fewer dropouts than large schools. Students who attend small schools have a greater sense of belonging than those who attend large schools; they are more likely to bond with their teachers and peers; and they more readily identify with their schools.
Terrence Stutz, writing in the Dallas Morning News, reported that:
Lower-income students in Texas and three other states have done better academically in smaller schools than in larger ones…The study conducted by education researchers at Ohio University and Marshall University found that school size is a significant factor in achievement levels for children from lower-income families. For Texas, the researchers looked at scores on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills to learn how much school size affected results. Test scores were analyzed from 6,288 schools in 960 districts - most districts in the state. "Many schools serving lower- and moderate-income communities in Texas are too large to achieve top student performance on the TAAS," the report concluded.
Full details here.
It makes more sense to rehabilitate the old schools to serve at the 300-400 student per school standard that they were designed for, and that researchers agree is the optimum size for a school. Kids in the tree-lined heart of our community can hike the less-than-two-miles along our shaded side walks and natural paths to the historic old buildings. And new schools serving new neighborhoods should also be small, located in the heart of the community, and accessible by walking.
Investing? Squadering? Is there a difference?
Can anybody help me understand the difference between "investing" money and "squandering" it?
I don't need help with the notion of "spending" it. Spending, I understand I have money in my pocket, or maybe in the bank. I see something I want. I dicker with the seller, I put up my cash,and I buy what I want. That's spending. I'm pretty good at that. (Maybe too good for my own good. )
It's when I don't have the money in my pocket or in the bank that I start to misunderstand things.
People tell me that borrowing money for a decent car, so I can get back and forth to work, is really an "investment". It's an investment in keeping my job, not being late, appearing reliable, all that.
On the other hand if I bought a Hummer or a Lamborghini -- and borrowed several times the value of my annual pay for that car -- well, that would be, I'm told, squandering money.
But I'm funding the process of getting a car. Squander, invest , what's the difference?
Some people tell me that college loans are an investment. Pay the fee and get the degree. Cool. And if you have to borrow the money to pay the fee, first, well, that's a smart thing to do.
On the other hand, if I borrow money for four-years of coursework in 19th century French Poetry, the degree I get at the end of the period might not help me much when it comes to repaying the loan. Does that mean the money was "squandered"?
I'm funding an education. Investing, squandering, what's the difference?
Isn't the difference really about what results I get after the end of the process? If the money spent gets me long lasting good results -- a good job, more money in my pocket -- then I guess what I borrowed for was an "investment". But if I borrow money -- and pay interest on the loan -- for anything that does NOT have long-lasting good results, then I have a problem.
I know people like that. They put the monthly payments for the cell phone, the DSL line, the cable TV, dinner at Chili's a few nights per week, electric bills, all that -- all onto their credit cards. Sometimes they get into credit problems -- so they scramble to scrape up the payments, take out a home-equity or bill consolidation loan, and get their credit scores cleaned up. So they can then -- get more credit. Raise the limits on their cards so they can do dinner at Saltgrass instead of Chili's, you know.
I don't think that qualilfies as an "investment".
In 2003 the Lancaster school had months left at the end of the money and issued Bond Series 2003-B borrowing $2.5 million over FIVE YEARS to get them thru. In 2004 they issued another bond, for nearly another $3 miillion, because once again they'd had months of expense left at the end of the year's worth of money. And in August of 2005 and in June of 2006 and AGAIN last month, in August of 2006, the Lancaster school district STILL had month left after they'd run out of money and had to borrow AGAIN, to tide them over until the state bails them out.
God help us all if the state decides to delay payment and do the kind of audit on Lancaster they did on Wilmer Hutchins.
This year the district has moved some payroll expenses to the 2004 capital improvement bonds budget. Elvin Lotten is working full time on bond related issues -- so , as the expression around here goes, There is Nothing Illegal About This. But it's like using your home equity loan to pay the kid who mows your lawn ...
So, did you know, that according to our Red Whiddon, the solution to lend the district MORE money?
Well, as we say around here, There Is No Law Against Stupid.
Can anybody help me understand the difference between "investing" money and "squandering" it?
I don't need help with the notion of "spending" it. Spending, I understand I have money in my pocket, or maybe in the bank. I see something I want. I dicker with the seller, I put up my cash,and I buy what I want. That's spending. I'm pretty good at that. (Maybe too good for my own good. )
It's when I don't have the money in my pocket or in the bank that I start to misunderstand things.
People tell me that borrowing money for a decent car, so I can get back and forth to work, is really an "investment". It's an investment in keeping my job, not being late, appearing reliable, all that.
On the other hand if I bought a Hummer or a Lamborghini -- and borrowed several times the value of my annual pay for that car -- well, that would be, I'm told, squandering money.
But I'm funding the process of getting a car. Squander, invest , what's the difference?
Some people tell me that college loans are an investment. Pay the fee and get the degree. Cool. And if you have to borrow the money to pay the fee, first, well, that's a smart thing to do.
On the other hand, if I borrow money for four-years of coursework in 19th century French Poetry, the degree I get at the end of the period might not help me much when it comes to repaying the loan. Does that mean the money was "squandered"?
I'm funding an education. Investing, squandering, what's the difference?
Isn't the difference really about what results I get after the end of the process? If the money spent gets me long lasting good results -- a good job, more money in my pocket -- then I guess what I borrowed for was an "investment". But if I borrow money -- and pay interest on the loan -- for anything that does NOT have long-lasting good results, then I have a problem.
I know people like that. They put the monthly payments for the cell phone, the DSL line, the cable TV, dinner at Chili's a few nights per week, electric bills, all that -- all onto their credit cards. Sometimes they get into credit problems -- so they scramble to scrape up the payments, take out a home-equity or bill consolidation loan, and get their credit scores cleaned up. So they can then -- get more credit. Raise the limits on their cards so they can do dinner at Saltgrass instead of Chili's, you know.
I don't think that qualilfies as an "investment".
In 2003 the Lancaster school had months left at the end of the money and issued Bond Series 2003-B borrowing $2.5 million over FIVE YEARS to get them thru. In 2004 they issued another bond, for nearly another $3 miillion, because once again they'd had months of expense left at the end of the year's worth of money. And in August of 2005 and in June of 2006 and AGAIN last month, in August of 2006, the Lancaster school district STILL had month left after they'd run out of money and had to borrow AGAIN, to tide them over until the state bails them out.
God help us all if the state decides to delay payment and do the kind of audit on Lancaster they did on Wilmer Hutchins.
This year the district has moved some payroll expenses to the 2004 capital improvement bonds budget. Elvin Lotten is working full time on bond related issues -- so , as the expression around here goes, There is Nothing Illegal About This. But it's like using your home equity loan to pay the kid who mows your lawn ...
So, did you know, that according to our Red Whiddon, the solution to lend the district MORE money?
Well, as we say around here, There Is No Law Against Stupid.
There's nothing illegal going on.
Buying Laptops for Lancaster ISD students isn't illegal.
Borrowing money for thirty years isn't illegal.
Borrowing money for thirty years to buy laptops that last three is ...
Well, I dunno. Do you?
I think it's pretty hard to pass a law against "stupid." Frankly I'm of the opinion we all have a inalienable birthright as Americans to be stupid. (If there ever was a law against stupid, I know I would be in big trouble...)
The laws about what Texas schools can use bond funds for The relevant laws are hyperlinked
here ,
each common school district under its jurisdiction, may:
(1) issue bonds for:
(A) the construction, acquisition, and equipment of school buildings in the district;
(B) the acquisition of property or the refinancing of property financed under a contract entered under Subchapter A, Chapter 271, Local Government Code, regardless of whether payment obligations under the contract are due in the current year or a future year;
(C) the purchase of the necessary sites for school buildings; and
(D) the purchase of new school buses; and
(2) may levy, pledge, assess, and collect annual ad valorem taxes sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the bonds as the principal and interest become due, subject to Section 45.003.
Also here .
32.105. EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS. A school district or open-enrollment charter school may spend public funds to: (1) purchase, refurbish, or repair any data processing equipment transferred to a student under this subchapter; and (2) store, transport, or transfer data processing equipment under this subchapter.
and here.
§ 32.202. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN FUNDS. A public school that provides a computer used to access the Internet is not eligible for a loan or grant under Subchapter C, Chapter 57, Utilities Code, unless the school adopts and implements an Internet safety policy under this section or under the federal Children's Internet Protection Act
Oh, and maybe here.
§ 143.005. FUNDS. (a) The technology program is funded by appropriations and by gifts, grants, and donations made for that purpose.
Go help me find where we are allowed to use borrowed money for laptops. Maybe, if you're smarter than I am, you can figure it out.
Buying Laptops for Lancaster ISD students isn't illegal.
Borrowing money for thirty years isn't illegal.
Borrowing money for thirty years to buy laptops that last three is ...
Well, I dunno. Do you?
I think it's pretty hard to pass a law against "stupid." Frankly I'm of the opinion we all have a inalienable birthright as Americans to be stupid. (If there ever was a law against stupid, I know I would be in big trouble...)
The laws about what Texas schools can use bond funds for The relevant laws are hyperlinked
here ,
each common school district under its jurisdiction, may:
(1) issue bonds for:
(A) the construction, acquisition, and equipment of school buildings in the district;
(B) the acquisition of property or the refinancing of property financed under a contract entered under Subchapter A, Chapter 271, Local Government Code, regardless of whether payment obligations under the contract are due in the current year or a future year;
(C) the purchase of the necessary sites for school buildings; and
(D) the purchase of new school buses; and
(2) may levy, pledge, assess, and collect annual ad valorem taxes sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the bonds as the principal and interest become due, subject to Section 45.003.
Also here .
32.105. EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS. A school district or open-enrollment charter school may spend public funds to: (1) purchase, refurbish, or repair any data processing equipment transferred to a student under this subchapter; and (2) store, transport, or transfer data processing equipment under this subchapter.
and here.
§ 32.202. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN FUNDS. A public school that provides a computer used to access the Internet is not eligible for a loan or grant under Subchapter C, Chapter 57, Utilities Code, unless the school adopts and implements an Internet safety policy under this section or under the federal Children's Internet Protection Act
Oh, and maybe here.
§ 143.005. FUNDS. (a) The technology program is funded by appropriations and by gifts, grants, and donations made for that purpose.
Go help me find where we are allowed to use borrowed money for laptops. Maybe, if you're smarter than I am, you can figure it out.
Thirty years is a long time.
If the current bond proposal passes the district has promised to purchase computers for students who will move entirely thru the school system -- from Pre-K to graduation -- in 14 years. Think about that. At maximum the time a child will spend in our schools is less than half the duration of that loan. The district proposes to borrow money, provide a child a laptop; and when that child has graduated, in 2020, perhaps married in 2022, maybe has bought a house in 2023, and finally sent his OWN child to a Lancaster school, sometime in 2028 -- then our district will STILL be re-paying that 2007 bond. We, and our adult home-owning, taxpaying, used-to-be laptop-using-children, will still continue to owe principle and interest on the 2007 Bonds for another nine years. If the laptops are only provided to students in fifth grade and higher, those students will graduate ( I hope ) in 2013. Then their children might be entering LISD school in about 2022. Those kids will move from Pre-K thru 12th, and graduate in spring of 2035 -- and the Lancaster ISD will STILL have TWO YEARS of payments on the 2007 Bonds. This is assuming that the district doesn't decide on a 40 year bond. In that case the district won't make the last bond payment until 2047, when the current fifth-graders' GRANDCHILDREN could be starting school.
Our consultant, Red Whiddon, points out that in the 2004 Bond, there were similar purchases of technology. Maybe, having gotten away with it once, we have established a legal precedent and can expect to get away with a bigger,more expensive, and grandiose experiment. After all, there are other districts who've provided laptops to students, and look at the ... results? ( Even no results are results, right? )
The comptroller told in 2004 that the state would study the use of laptops in classrooms and let us know how well it works, in 2007.
Three years. Just to study how much bang for the buck a school gets with a laptop.
Three years is a LONG time.
But not as long as thirty years.
If the current bond proposal passes the district has promised to purchase computers for students who will move entirely thru the school system -- from Pre-K to graduation -- in 14 years. Think about that. At maximum the time a child will spend in our schools is less than half the duration of that loan. The district proposes to borrow money, provide a child a laptop; and when that child has graduated, in 2020, perhaps married in 2022, maybe has bought a house in 2023, and finally sent his OWN child to a Lancaster school, sometime in 2028 -- then our district will STILL be re-paying that 2007 bond. We, and our adult home-owning, taxpaying, used-to-be laptop-using-children, will still continue to owe principle and interest on the 2007 Bonds for another nine years. If the laptops are only provided to students in fifth grade and higher, those students will graduate ( I hope ) in 2013. Then their children might be entering LISD school in about 2022. Those kids will move from Pre-K thru 12th, and graduate in spring of 2035 -- and the Lancaster ISD will STILL have TWO YEARS of payments on the 2007 Bonds. This is assuming that the district doesn't decide on a 40 year bond. In that case the district won't make the last bond payment until 2047, when the current fifth-graders' GRANDCHILDREN could be starting school.
Our consultant, Red Whiddon, points out that in the 2004 Bond, there were similar purchases of technology. Maybe, having gotten away with it once, we have established a legal precedent and can expect to get away with a bigger,more expensive, and grandiose experiment. After all, there are other districts who've provided laptops to students, and look at the ... results? ( Even no results are results, right? )
The comptroller told in 2004 that the state would study the use of laptops in classrooms and let us know how well it works, in 2007.
Three years. Just to study how much bang for the buck a school gets with a laptop.
Three years is a LONG time.
But not as long as thirty years.
Lancaster ISD proposes to borrow money for 30 years to buy (among other things) laptops.
Did you know laptops, like most computers, will be obsolete in 3 years?
The school administration assures us that in the first few years of the bond repayment period, we'll apply those payments to the assets with the shortest depreciation period. Like laptops. This is exactly like how I make the monthly payments on my five-year auto loan. The first year's payments apply to the windshield wipers. Then I apply payments to the air filters, fan belt, and the tires. Then I pay for the upholstery, floor mats, and timing chain. Only after all those items have worn out and been replaced do any of my car payments apply to slow-depreciation parts of the car like the transmission, engine, and paint job. Of course that's how my loan contract works -- doesn't everybody's?
But then, maybe a 5-year car loan is different than borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars for three decades.
Maybe it's not.
But there is nothing obviously and certainly illegal about this.
But maybe, just maybe, there ought to be.
Did you know laptops, like most computers, will be obsolete in 3 years?
The school administration assures us that in the first few years of the bond repayment period, we'll apply those payments to the assets with the shortest depreciation period. Like laptops. This is exactly like how I make the monthly payments on my five-year auto loan. The first year's payments apply to the windshield wipers. Then I apply payments to the air filters, fan belt, and the tires. Then I pay for the upholstery, floor mats, and timing chain. Only after all those items have worn out and been replaced do any of my car payments apply to slow-depreciation parts of the car like the transmission, engine, and paint job. Of course that's how my loan contract works -- doesn't everybody's?
But then, maybe a 5-year car loan is different than borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars for three decades.
Maybe it's not.
But there is nothing obviously and certainly illegal about this.
But maybe, just maybe, there ought to be.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Check your teacher's credentials
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.
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.
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.