Monday, July 21, 2008
Listening Session - Are you coming?
The Teacher's Union sent an email to all of the teachers in the District asking them to attend tomorrow's listening session and School Board Meeting.
Would the Union notice if you did not attend? Why does the Union care if the Administration and School Board are held accountable for their actions? Does the Union support the questionable actions of the Administration?
Here is the email:
==========
From: Anderson, Jay [MN]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 3:59 PM
To: [REDACTED]
Subject: Memo for July 22 listening session
Executive Board Members and Building representatives, I am requesting your presence at the July 22 listening session (7:00 PM ESC). I would ask you to attend the session and to contact as many of your colleagues as you can to attend to support any or all of the following:
· Superintendant Hintz and her leadership of our district
· The school board and their difficult decisions over the course of the last year
· The Strategic Plan and its importance in giving our district the direction and values to guide it into the future
We are at a critical point in the direction of the district and need to express our support for a positive atmosphere for the benefit of the children and employees in the district. We need to move on with the healing process and put the pain of the past year behind us. The board meeting will be an opportunity to express our thoughts and opinions as educators of 279 in response to all of the negative publicity the district has received this past year. Teachers need to rise to the occasion and give a professional response to the hurtful rhetoric of the past few months. I ask you to approach this challenge from the point of view of what is best for the students of our district. I can think of no one better to deliver this message than you; the Educators of the children of the district.
My hope is that you would first of all be willing to attend and join me in speaking to any or all of the points above in the listening session prior to the board meeting. If unable to attend I would request you send an email to the superintendant and school board members in support of any or all of the points above.
If you can attend please RSVP to [REDACTED] letting her know you will attend and also if you would be willing to speak:
[REDACTED - individual at Education Minnesota]
Thank You
Jay Anderson
President
Education Minnesota - OSSEO
Would the Union notice if you did not attend? Why does the Union care if the Administration and School Board are held accountable for their actions? Does the Union support the questionable actions of the Administration?
Here is the email:
==========
From: Anderson, Jay [MN]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 3:59 PM
To: [REDACTED]
Subject: Memo for July 22 listening session
Executive Board Members and Building representatives, I am requesting your presence at the July 22 listening session (7:00 PM ESC). I would ask you to attend the session and to contact as many of your colleagues as you can to attend to support any or all of the following:
· Superintendant Hintz and her leadership of our district
· The school board and their difficult decisions over the course of the last year
· The Strategic Plan and its importance in giving our district the direction and values to guide it into the future
We are at a critical point in the direction of the district and need to express our support for a positive atmosphere for the benefit of the children and employees in the district. We need to move on with the healing process and put the pain of the past year behind us. The board meeting will be an opportunity to express our thoughts and opinions as educators of 279 in response to all of the negative publicity the district has received this past year. Teachers need to rise to the occasion and give a professional response to the hurtful rhetoric of the past few months. I ask you to approach this challenge from the point of view of what is best for the students of our district. I can think of no one better to deliver this message than you; the Educators of the children of the district.
My hope is that you would first of all be willing to attend and join me in speaking to any or all of the points above in the listening session prior to the board meeting. If unable to attend I would request you send an email to the superintendant and school board members in support of any or all of the points above.
If you can attend please RSVP to [REDACTED] letting her know you will attend and also if you would be willing to speak:
[REDACTED - individual at Education Minnesota]
Thank You
Jay Anderson
President
Education Minnesota - OSSEO
Friday, July 18, 2008
More Emails
[Click here to download the emails.]
The team reviewing emails continues to find an administration that disregards the community and exhibits questionable ethical behavior rather than embracing the community and solving problems together.
HENKE001253.pdf - In this document, Linda (loxleychase@aol.com) explains how she is currently uncomfortable with the Teamworks proposal: "I don't like the options that were presented and have some deep concerns about all of this. I really think we need to spend more time on this. I think we all need to brainstorm and come up with solutions that we think are reasonable as opposed to being handed a set of solutions."
As you can tell from the email chain, Lin then disagrees with the need to explore options: "I can't make good decisions for the district as a whole if I am swayed by the squeaky wheel. I need time to see what other communications we receive; so, at this time, I'm not in favor of calling such a work session."
My question: if the community is a squeaky wheel, isn't the administration just as much of a squeaky wheel when it comes to wanting the attention of the school board?
Then...HINTZ002377.pdf ... Susan to someone: "Keep this confidential. We could have a problem with two ( L and D)." This is in the same email chain and is forwarding Linda's original request to someone -- probably in the administration. Clearly this is referring to Linda and Dean. It is disappointing that Linda and Dean are viewed as problems rather than understanding their concerns.
HINTZ002385.pdf - This is seemingly minor, but we find out how Susan and the Administration get around the open meeting law: "We're making progress, but our Board needs a little TLC. Here's my idea. I would like to bring them in next Thursday, January 31, three at a time, to meet with you and members of the Action Team so that we can answer their questions about school closings and go over the boundary changes that we should have ready by then."
HINTZ_UNKNOWN.pdf - We now know that at least three of the board members knew about the School District improperly using Voter Registration Lists along with Susan. When they saw the email concerning Pacific Legal, someone (conceivably from the administration since they had the voter registration lists) indicates: "also interesting that it appears that 2 of the 11 names (18%) listed didn't bother to vote on the levy last November."
I have asked the parents that are reviewing the emails to try to find out more about the voter registration lists. I would like to see the full conversation, if it exists.
It is very interesting to see that the Administration and some members of the School Board were in many ways judging the community throughout the process rather than embracing and learning from the community. I am sure there must be examples of the District reaching out to parents in need, but the behavior exhibited above clearly does not foster open dialog and community.
The team reviewing emails continues to find an administration that disregards the community and exhibits questionable ethical behavior rather than embracing the community and solving problems together.
HENKE001253.pdf - In this document, Linda (loxleychase@aol.com) explains how she is currently uncomfortable with the Teamworks proposal: "I don't like the options that were presented and have some deep concerns about all of this. I really think we need to spend more time on this. I think we all need to brainstorm and come up with solutions that we think are reasonable as opposed to being handed a set of solutions."
As you can tell from the email chain, Lin then disagrees with the need to explore options: "I can't make good decisions for the district as a whole if I am swayed by the squeaky wheel. I need time to see what other communications we receive; so, at this time, I'm not in favor of calling such a work session."
My question: if the community is a squeaky wheel, isn't the administration just as much of a squeaky wheel when it comes to wanting the attention of the school board?
Then...HINTZ002377.pdf ... Susan to someone: "Keep this confidential. We could have a problem with two ( L and D)." This is in the same email chain and is forwarding Linda's original request to someone -- probably in the administration. Clearly this is referring to Linda and Dean. It is disappointing that Linda and Dean are viewed as problems rather than understanding their concerns.
HINTZ002385.pdf - This is seemingly minor, but we find out how Susan and the Administration get around the open meeting law: "We're making progress, but our Board needs a little TLC. Here's my idea. I would like to bring them in next Thursday, January 31, three at a time, to meet with you and members of the Action Team so that we can answer their questions about school closings and go over the boundary changes that we should have ready by then."
HINTZ_UNKNOWN.pdf - We now know that at least three of the board members knew about the School District improperly using Voter Registration Lists along with Susan. When they saw the email concerning Pacific Legal, someone (conceivably from the administration since they had the voter registration lists) indicates: "also interesting that it appears that 2 of the 11 names (18%) listed didn't bother to vote on the levy last November."
I have asked the parents that are reviewing the emails to try to find out more about the voter registration lists. I would like to see the full conversation, if it exists.
It is very interesting to see that the Administration and some members of the School Board were in many ways judging the community throughout the process rather than embracing and learning from the community. I am sure there must be examples of the District reaching out to parents in need, but the behavior exhibited above clearly does not foster open dialog and community.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Voter Registration Lists
I have received a number of questions about whether using voter registration lists in this manner is actually illegal. I am not sure and it was not my intent to expose a legal situation. It was my intent to expose some very ethically questionable behavior.
Just so that everyone understands before reading any further, I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY.
As previously posted, it was thought that people who spoke at Community Comment were looked up. I thought the information was potentially provided in a report. It was not. Instead at least one School Board Member (and possibly more) actually looked people up while community members were speaking. I questioned a School Board Member about discounting people's opinions based on their voting record. The School Board Member responded that that is NOT how it was used. I asked how it was used and did not get an answer.
So, how can Voter Registration Lists be used? Here is the summary of the Minnesota Statue (201.091?):
“Before inspecting the public information list or obtaining a list of voters or other information from the list, the individual shall provide identification to the public official having custody of the public information list and shall state in writing that any information obtained from the list will not be used for purposes unrelated to elections, political activities, or law enforcement.”
It is clearly not an election or for law enforcement related.
So, is the proposal and activities surrounding the proposal considered political activity? I looked up political activity as it pertains to Minnesota and employees. Here is what it indicates:
“No employee shall, directly or indirectly, during hours of employment solicit or receive funds for political purposes, or use official authority or influence to compel an employee in the classified service to apply for membership in or become a member of any political organization, to pay or promise to pay any assessment, subscription, or contribution or to take part in any political activity.”
So, if it is political, then the Administration can not advocate within itself (to its employees) for the proposal nor could any employee be asked to take part in political activity (such as presenting to the board). It would be illegal if it was political activity to try to sway employees’ opinions about the proposal (potentially even the School Board’s). Based on the above definition, I do not think it is considered political activity. Are there other definitions of Political Activity? Certainly. On the face of the entire situation, I have to say that it feels political, but this is the only definition of political activity I could find as it pertains to Minnesota.
Another point to consider: there is only 1 signature on the form requesting voter registration records. The person that signed the information was probably not directly involved with this activity. Should our elected officials and leaders within the Administration know what is right and wrong in terms of using voter registration lists? I am guessing that they do based on Tracy’s email indicating that Susan denied ever having used the list.
Regardless of whether it is illegal, it raises significant ethical questions. Should a person’s concern be evaluated in any manner simply because of their voting record? Is a concern not a concern? Does a police officer determine whether you voted in the last election prior to listening to your concern? Of course, that is taking it to an extreme.
As background, here is a link to the statue:
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=201.091
Here is a link to the form:
http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/voter_registration_list_request_form_rev_2-08.pdf
Just so that everyone understands before reading any further, I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY.
As previously posted, it was thought that people who spoke at Community Comment were looked up. I thought the information was potentially provided in a report. It was not. Instead at least one School Board Member (and possibly more) actually looked people up while community members were speaking. I questioned a School Board Member about discounting people's opinions based on their voting record. The School Board Member responded that that is NOT how it was used. I asked how it was used and did not get an answer.
So, how can Voter Registration Lists be used? Here is the summary of the Minnesota Statue (201.091?):
“Before inspecting the public information list or obtaining a list of voters or other information from the list, the individual shall provide identification to the public official having custody of the public information list and shall state in writing that any information obtained from the list will not be used for purposes unrelated to elections, political activities, or law enforcement.”
It is clearly not an election or for law enforcement related.
So, is the proposal and activities surrounding the proposal considered political activity? I looked up political activity as it pertains to Minnesota and employees. Here is what it indicates:
“No employee shall, directly or indirectly, during hours of employment solicit or receive funds for political purposes, or use official authority or influence to compel an employee in the classified service to apply for membership in or become a member of any political organization, to pay or promise to pay any assessment, subscription, or contribution or to take part in any political activity.”
So, if it is political, then the Administration can not advocate within itself (to its employees) for the proposal nor could any employee be asked to take part in political activity (such as presenting to the board). It would be illegal if it was political activity to try to sway employees’ opinions about the proposal (potentially even the School Board’s). Based on the above definition, I do not think it is considered political activity. Are there other definitions of Political Activity? Certainly. On the face of the entire situation, I have to say that it feels political, but this is the only definition of political activity I could find as it pertains to Minnesota.
Another point to consider: there is only 1 signature on the form requesting voter registration records. The person that signed the information was probably not directly involved with this activity. Should our elected officials and leaders within the Administration know what is right and wrong in terms of using voter registration lists? I am guessing that they do based on Tracy’s email indicating that Susan denied ever having used the list.
Regardless of whether it is illegal, it raises significant ethical questions. Should a person’s concern be evaluated in any manner simply because of their voting record? Is a concern not a concern? Does a police officer determine whether you voted in the last election prior to listening to your concern? Of course, that is taking it to an extreme.
As background, here is a link to the statue:
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=201.091
Here is a link to the form:
http://www.sos.state.mn.us/docs/voter_registration_list_request_form_rev_2-08.pdf
Thursday, July 10, 2008
What Happened to Cedar Island Elementary?
[This is posted with permission from Shellie Tyron. You can click here to download the associated file.]
When the School Board voted to turn Cedar Island, and Oakview in to a preK-3 and 4th-6th grade campus many of us were still left with the question of WHY? How does this benefit the district? We still have yet to find one benefit, but finally we have an answer as to Why.
In a February 12th meeting with at least five Cedar Island parents in attendance, Don Pascoe was asked if the proposal to repurspose Cedar Island was a result of Fair Oaks failing AYPs (Adequate Yearly Progress under the No Child Left Behind Law).
His response was: "No, the proposal was created in order to meet the school board's request of increasing ECFE, solving the Fair Oaks AYP problem was just a pleasant outcome." He went on to say that we could NOT question the premise behind moving the Fair Oaks 4th-6th graders to Oak View, but it was fair to question whether or not we needed more ECFE.
Superintendent Hintz composed an email on February 11th 2008 stating the following "Would you please have someone research the benefits (if there are any) of the K-3/4-6 configuration? We are doing the CI/Oak View/FO configuration in order to provide more Early Childhood and to help FO out of AYP. Is there any sound educational benefit?"
Under the No Child Left Behind Law when a school fails to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for four consecutive years, the school district is required to take "corrective action" to improve the school. This may include replacing the entire school staff or introducing new curriculum. Fair Oaks was the first school in district 279 that was running up against the corrective action deadline. The Administration chose not to deal with the problem at site level, instead, they decided to simply shift the 4th – 6th graders to a different school, thus restructuring. Problem solved! Or Not.
The administration and at least one school Board member denied over and over that the restructuring had anything to do with Fair Oaks meeting AYP.
After the administration decided to restructure Cedar Island and Oakview, they tried to find justification to "sell" the idea. They found nothing to support the 4th-6th grade model (see attached emails), still they continued to move full speed ahead. Who needs data to support a move that will affect the education of 700 4th -6th graders, apparently not our school district.
The complete impact of repurposing Cedar Island and Oakview has yet to be determined, however, the first wave was felt when families from Cedar Island and Oakview began leaving the district, either by open enrollment, private school attendance or selling their homes and moving. I have asked the district how many students from Cedar Island and Oakview will not be returning for the 2008/2009 school year, to date I have not received a response. I know of 35 Cedar Island students that will not returning. The district will loose $280,000. The Save Cedar Island committee delivered a document to each School Board member on February 19th, in it contained a survey that predicted they would lose 40 Cedar Island students if they went ahead with the proposal. Did the School Board consider this information when making their decision?
Shellie Tyron
When the School Board voted to turn Cedar Island, and Oakview in to a preK-3 and 4th-6th grade campus many of us were still left with the question of WHY? How does this benefit the district? We still have yet to find one benefit, but finally we have an answer as to Why.
In a February 12th meeting with at least five Cedar Island parents in attendance, Don Pascoe was asked if the proposal to repurspose Cedar Island was a result of Fair Oaks failing AYPs (Adequate Yearly Progress under the No Child Left Behind Law).
His response was: "No, the proposal was created in order to meet the school board's request of increasing ECFE, solving the Fair Oaks AYP problem was just a pleasant outcome." He went on to say that we could NOT question the premise behind moving the Fair Oaks 4th-6th graders to Oak View, but it was fair to question whether or not we needed more ECFE.
Superintendent Hintz composed an email on February 11th 2008 stating the following "Would you please have someone research the benefits (if there are any) of the K-3/4-6 configuration? We are doing the CI/Oak View/FO configuration in order to provide more Early Childhood and to help FO out of AYP. Is there any sound educational benefit?"
Under the No Child Left Behind Law when a school fails to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for four consecutive years, the school district is required to take "corrective action" to improve the school. This may include replacing the entire school staff or introducing new curriculum. Fair Oaks was the first school in district 279 that was running up against the corrective action deadline. The Administration chose not to deal with the problem at site level, instead, they decided to simply shift the 4th – 6th graders to a different school, thus restructuring. Problem solved! Or Not.
The administration and at least one school Board member denied over and over that the restructuring had anything to do with Fair Oaks meeting AYP.
After the administration decided to restructure Cedar Island and Oakview, they tried to find justification to "sell" the idea. They found nothing to support the 4th-6th grade model (see attached emails), still they continued to move full speed ahead. Who needs data to support a move that will affect the education of 700 4th -6th graders, apparently not our school district.
The complete impact of repurposing Cedar Island and Oakview has yet to be determined, however, the first wave was felt when families from Cedar Island and Oakview began leaving the district, either by open enrollment, private school attendance or selling their homes and moving. I have asked the district how many students from Cedar Island and Oakview will not be returning for the 2008/2009 school year, to date I have not received a response. I know of 35 Cedar Island students that will not returning. The district will loose $280,000. The Save Cedar Island committee delivered a document to each School Board member on February 19th, in it contained a survey that predicted they would lose 40 Cedar Island students if they went ahead with the proposal. Did the School Board consider this information when making their decision?
Shellie Tyron
Campus Schools
[This is posted with permission from Sara Krueger. You can click here to download the associated file.]
It is fact that the administration came up with the campus idea (C.I. PK-3, F.O. PK-3 and O.V. 4-6) to help Fair Oaks get out of AYP. Based on the attached document from Superintendent Susan Hintz which states: 'Would you please have someone research the benefits (if there are any) of the K-3/4-6 configuration? We are doing the CI/Oak View/FO configuration in order to provide more Early Childhood and to help FO out of AYP. Is there any sound educational benefit?'.
The Save Cedar Island group met with Don Pascoe on Wed., Feb. 12th at 6:30pm. In this meeting our group was told that the campus model was not created to help Fair Oaks out of their failing AYP status. Don Pascoe stated that there had not been any talk of re-structuring Fair Oaks prior to the proposal and that the proposal brought a pleasant surprise and may solve a future problem.
In a meeting that I had with Susan Hintz on 2-28-2008, she clearly stated to me that the reasoning behind the campus model was entirely due to the need for more ECFE in the district. I asked Susan Hintz point blank if the campus model was created to help Fair Oaks out of their failing AYP status and to help with the district's desegregation rule and I was told flat out NO, it is to increase the need to have more ECFE availability.
It seems clear that this is yet another attempt by the school administration led by Supt. Susan Hintz to lie to the public and keep certain information out of our hands and away from our ears. Why were we not told the truth from the get go? Why the deceit from the beginning?
Unfortunately this just leaves the question: What else were we lied to about?
After spending months and countless hours trying to prove to the administration and the school board that these proposals did not help the budget crisis, only to learn that the decisions were made beforehand because of a different 'secret agenda' by our superintendent Susan Hintz, sickens me. I am also ashamed of my elected officials, the school board, who did not listen to any of our concerns. Had they to made up their minds before the whole process started? Where there is one lie, there are usually hundreds buried even deeper.
Sincerely,
Sara Krueger
Cedar Island and Oak View parent
It is fact that the administration came up with the campus idea (C.I. PK-3, F.O. PK-3 and O.V. 4-6) to help Fair Oaks get out of AYP. Based on the attached document from Superintendent Susan Hintz which states: 'Would you please have someone research the benefits (if there are any) of the K-3/4-6 configuration? We are doing the CI/Oak View/FO configuration in order to provide more Early Childhood and to help FO out of AYP. Is there any sound educational benefit?'.
The Save Cedar Island group met with Don Pascoe on Wed., Feb. 12th at 6:30pm. In this meeting our group was told that the campus model was not created to help Fair Oaks out of their failing AYP status. Don Pascoe stated that there had not been any talk of re-structuring Fair Oaks prior to the proposal and that the proposal brought a pleasant surprise and may solve a future problem.
In a meeting that I had with Susan Hintz on 2-28-2008, she clearly stated to me that the reasoning behind the campus model was entirely due to the need for more ECFE in the district. I asked Susan Hintz point blank if the campus model was created to help Fair Oaks out of their failing AYP status and to help with the district's desegregation rule and I was told flat out NO, it is to increase the need to have more ECFE availability.
It seems clear that this is yet another attempt by the school administration led by Supt. Susan Hintz to lie to the public and keep certain information out of our hands and away from our ears. Why were we not told the truth from the get go? Why the deceit from the beginning?
Unfortunately this just leaves the question: What else were we lied to about?
After spending months and countless hours trying to prove to the administration and the school board that these proposals did not help the budget crisis, only to learn that the decisions were made beforehand because of a different 'secret agenda' by our superintendent Susan Hintz, sickens me. I am also ashamed of my elected officials, the school board, who did not listen to any of our concerns. Had they to made up their minds before the whole process started? Where there is one lie, there are usually hundreds buried even deeper.
Sincerely,
Sara Krueger
Cedar Island and Oak View parent
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Request for Emails - Where's the beef?
I have spoken with several of the parents reviewing emails from the District concerning the way the emails were delivered. Here is what I found out:
==========
Question: What was the timing on receiving the emails?
The emails were requested from the District on or around February 15, 2008. The parents involved followed up with the District every 3 to 5 days from then until they filed a lawsuit in April. There is a date/time stamp on some of the documents that indicate that they were printed on April 11 – two full months after the request. On June 6 in an affidavit, the District attorneys indicated that they had only completely 6 to 8% of the review.
Question: How many actual emails did you receive?
It is difficult to tell. The documents were delivered as large PDFs with thousands of pages in each PDF. Determining where page breaks are is very difficult. We know we received around 20,000 to 21,000 pages.
Question: Did you receive everything?
Well, as you know the affidavit filed by the District on June 3 states that there were 57,000 emails to review. It also stated that half of them were responsive putting the total number at around 28,500 emails. Even if every email was only one page, we could not have received everything.
Question: Were public emails collected from all email accounts?
Evidently quite a few board members used personal email accounts to reply to the community and to conduct business with the District. The School Board Members did not turn over those emails. We are not sure that those should be public record or not. We know that as an employee of a business if we use a personal email account on our home computer to conduct business that information is the property of our employer and is discoverable [can be requested as evidence] if our employer was sued. In this case, the District is not being sued. This is completely under the MN Data Practices Act, which may not compel the District to gather that information. Still, if a School Board member insists on using their personal email account (as several have) then one would think that those emails were available as part of the public record -- as long as the email concerns their role as a School Board Member. Certainly personal emails, outside of their School Board dealings, are private.
Question: One of the consistency checks that can be performed is to check and see that the same email is received by all board members. Are you able to find consistency between School Board Members?
Unfortunately, we are finding inconsistent archives of emails. For example, Susan may have sent an email to all board members, but it only shows up in two of the board members' sets of documents. Furthermore, just to make sure that our own emails had made it through in January, February and March, the parents are checking for the emails they know they sent. So far, they are reporting spotty results -- some emails made it through to one or two people and some emails did not make it through to anyone. This would indicate that the emails may have been deleted or perhaps the District or the law firm did not do a good job turning over everything -- after all the numbers do not appear to add up.
Question: You indicated in our previous discussions that the quality and organization of the emails may be less than ideal as well. What did you find and why is this important?
The overall quality of the scanned images is poor in general. As well, the images are completely out of order. For example, you may have an email that references an attachment, but the attachment might not appear until several documents later -- or seemingly not at all. This makes it difficult to match up documents that might be similar. The documents are completely out of date order as well, which makes it difficult to review the documents and follow the conversations.
[From a legal background, when documents are turned over, they are turned over in what is considered the “normal course”, which loosely means that you turn documents over in the same manner that they would be found in the normal course of business. This is obviously not the case and it appears to be making the review of documents very difficult. Disclaimer: I am NOT an attorney.]
Question: We saw from some of the first documents released that the redactions were inconsistent. How are documents redacted?
When the same email is sent to all of the board members, the redactions (the blacked out portion of the emails) are completely inconsistent. In fact, it is difficult to find the redactions that were applied consistently within duplicate documents. Another area of redactions that is inconsistent is when Teamworks is mentioned. The name Teamworks is not redacted out in the proposals or in quite a few of the documents, but in some cases they redacted out Teamworks. In one document it is redacted and in the duplicate under a different School Board member the name is not redacted.
==========
Question: What was the timing on receiving the emails?
The emails were requested from the District on or around February 15, 2008. The parents involved followed up with the District every 3 to 5 days from then until they filed a lawsuit in April. There is a date/time stamp on some of the documents that indicate that they were printed on April 11 – two full months after the request. On June 6 in an affidavit, the District attorneys indicated that they had only completely 6 to 8% of the review.
Question: How many actual emails did you receive?
It is difficult to tell. The documents were delivered as large PDFs with thousands of pages in each PDF. Determining where page breaks are is very difficult. We know we received around 20,000 to 21,000 pages.
Question: Did you receive everything?
Well, as you know the affidavit filed by the District on June 3 states that there were 57,000 emails to review. It also stated that half of them were responsive putting the total number at around 28,500 emails. Even if every email was only one page, we could not have received everything.
Question: Were public emails collected from all email accounts?
Evidently quite a few board members used personal email accounts to reply to the community and to conduct business with the District. The School Board Members did not turn over those emails. We are not sure that those should be public record or not. We know that as an employee of a business if we use a personal email account on our home computer to conduct business that information is the property of our employer and is discoverable [can be requested as evidence] if our employer was sued. In this case, the District is not being sued. This is completely under the MN Data Practices Act, which may not compel the District to gather that information. Still, if a School Board member insists on using their personal email account (as several have) then one would think that those emails were available as part of the public record -- as long as the email concerns their role as a School Board Member. Certainly personal emails, outside of their School Board dealings, are private.
Question: One of the consistency checks that can be performed is to check and see that the same email is received by all board members. Are you able to find consistency between School Board Members?
Unfortunately, we are finding inconsistent archives of emails. For example, Susan may have sent an email to all board members, but it only shows up in two of the board members' sets of documents. Furthermore, just to make sure that our own emails had made it through in January, February and March, the parents are checking for the emails they know they sent. So far, they are reporting spotty results -- some emails made it through to one or two people and some emails did not make it through to anyone. This would indicate that the emails may have been deleted or perhaps the District or the law firm did not do a good job turning over everything -- after all the numbers do not appear to add up.
Question: You indicated in our previous discussions that the quality and organization of the emails may be less than ideal as well. What did you find and why is this important?
The overall quality of the scanned images is poor in general. As well, the images are completely out of order. For example, you may have an email that references an attachment, but the attachment might not appear until several documents later -- or seemingly not at all. This makes it difficult to match up documents that might be similar. The documents are completely out of date order as well, which makes it difficult to review the documents and follow the conversations.
[From a legal background, when documents are turned over, they are turned over in what is considered the “normal course”, which loosely means that you turn documents over in the same manner that they would be found in the normal course of business. This is obviously not the case and it appears to be making the review of documents very difficult. Disclaimer: I am NOT an attorney.]
Question: We saw from some of the first documents released that the redactions were inconsistent. How are documents redacted?
When the same email is sent to all of the board members, the redactions (the blacked out portion of the emails) are completely inconsistent. In fact, it is difficult to find the redactions that were applied consistently within duplicate documents. Another area of redactions that is inconsistent is when Teamworks is mentioned. The name Teamworks is not redacted out in the proposals or in quite a few of the documents, but in some cases they redacted out Teamworks. In one document it is redacted and in the duplicate under a different School Board member the name is not redacted.
Fiscal Responsibility/Sustainability
[This is an email published with permission from Dave Lunt.]
Dear Superintendent Hintz and Board Members:
There have been some recent conversations regarding fiscal responsibility or sustainability. Since finance is my bailiwick (and I obviously have lots of opinions to which I believe you are entitled), I thought I'd weigh in on this one as well.
A balanced budget requires that income match expenditures over a specific time frame (typically one year). If you spend more than you take in, you have a budget deficit. If you spend less than you take in, you have a budget surplus.
Deficits must be financed, either through debt or through tapping reserve or "rainy day" funds. Surpluses are typically used to fund reserves or to pay down debt from prior deficits.
The district has not operated with a balanced budget for some time. Expenditures exceeded revenues, and the deficits were funded by reserves. In the process, reserves have been drawn down to the minimum level the board deems prudent.
Let's walk through the practical implications of operating deficits. I'll assume that a school district's revenues are growing at 1%, while expenses are growing at 5%. If the district has reserves, it may be able to fund the resulting deficit for a period of time. If not, the district must either issue debt or cut expenses to close the gap.
Issuing debt merely delays the inevitable unless there is some future prospect for revenues to exceed expenditures. I don't think that debt is a viable way to fund operating deficits, so let's eliminate that option. Therefore, the district must cut costs to eliminate the 4% spread.
Let's say that there are 35 students in the average class. If a district is running a 4% deficit and assuming that the cost structure remains stable, then teachers will bear their proportionate share of the deficit and need to be cut 4% annually (or more meaningfully if a deficit has increased over time and has been funded with reserves until that is no longer an option). Other things equal, the average class size will have increased to nearly 43 (up 22%) after five years. At that point, if not sooner, the district would need to close schools. In our case, it would probably result in the closure of a junior high, a high school, and at least a couple of elementary schools.
It's actually not that simple. First, generally younger and lower salary "probationary teachers" are the first to go. As a result, more teachers will need to be cut to achieve the same dollar reduction in costs, so the impact on class size would be incrementally worse. Second, the district drains the pipeline of future teachers and increases its weighted-average cost per teacher (as well as experience level, so it's not all negative). While there is something to be said for experience, I believe that you will agree that it is most healthy to have a cross-section of experience levels.
The scenario I just described is not sustainable and not far off the mark from ours. While I understand the need to negotiate in good faith, the reality of the situation is that the district can't afford to spend more than it takes in. The result will be steadily increasing class sizes and school closures.
I believe teachers are underpaid. As I have mentioned to you, I come from a long line of educators. My dad was a college professor at a public university for almost forty years. He was a Ph.D. and far smarter than I'll ever be. I probably matched his income five years out of college, purely because I chose a different line of work.
But salaries are a function of supply and demand and determined by the marketplace. While our district needs to be competitive with others in the area, we can't meaningfully impact the marketplace or pay more than we can afford.
I also appreciate the concern about a strike. I was told that it takes ten years to recover from a strike. How long does it take to recover from what we just went through?
I would like to tie this back to my last couple of emails. This scenario is yet another potential negative feedback loop that could cause additional students to opt out of the district, putting additional pressure on revenues and exacerbating the situation. If this plays out, the district will continue to be an exporter of talent (both students and teachers) and lessor of education-related properties.
Dave
Dear Superintendent Hintz and Board Members:
There have been some recent conversations regarding fiscal responsibility or sustainability. Since finance is my bailiwick (and I obviously have lots of opinions to which I believe you are entitled), I thought I'd weigh in on this one as well.
A balanced budget requires that income match expenditures over a specific time frame (typically one year). If you spend more than you take in, you have a budget deficit. If you spend less than you take in, you have a budget surplus.
Deficits must be financed, either through debt or through tapping reserve or "rainy day" funds. Surpluses are typically used to fund reserves or to pay down debt from prior deficits.
The district has not operated with a balanced budget for some time. Expenditures exceeded revenues, and the deficits were funded by reserves. In the process, reserves have been drawn down to the minimum level the board deems prudent.
Let's walk through the practical implications of operating deficits. I'll assume that a school district's revenues are growing at 1%, while expenses are growing at 5%. If the district has reserves, it may be able to fund the resulting deficit for a period of time. If not, the district must either issue debt or cut expenses to close the gap.
Issuing debt merely delays the inevitable unless there is some future prospect for revenues to exceed expenditures. I don't think that debt is a viable way to fund operating deficits, so let's eliminate that option. Therefore, the district must cut costs to eliminate the 4% spread.
Let's say that there are 35 students in the average class. If a district is running a 4% deficit and assuming that the cost structure remains stable, then teachers will bear their proportionate share of the deficit and need to be cut 4% annually (or more meaningfully if a deficit has increased over time and has been funded with reserves until that is no longer an option). Other things equal, the average class size will have increased to nearly 43 (up 22%) after five years. At that point, if not sooner, the district would need to close schools. In our case, it would probably result in the closure of a junior high, a high school, and at least a couple of elementary schools.
It's actually not that simple. First, generally younger and lower salary "probationary teachers" are the first to go. As a result, more teachers will need to be cut to achieve the same dollar reduction in costs, so the impact on class size would be incrementally worse. Second, the district drains the pipeline of future teachers and increases its weighted-average cost per teacher (as well as experience level, so it's not all negative). While there is something to be said for experience, I believe that you will agree that it is most healthy to have a cross-section of experience levels.
The scenario I just described is not sustainable and not far off the mark from ours. While I understand the need to negotiate in good faith, the reality of the situation is that the district can't afford to spend more than it takes in. The result will be steadily increasing class sizes and school closures.
I believe teachers are underpaid. As I have mentioned to you, I come from a long line of educators. My dad was a college professor at a public university for almost forty years. He was a Ph.D. and far smarter than I'll ever be. I probably matched his income five years out of college, purely because I chose a different line of work.
But salaries are a function of supply and demand and determined by the marketplace. While our district needs to be competitive with others in the area, we can't meaningfully impact the marketplace or pay more than we can afford.
I also appreciate the concern about a strike. I was told that it takes ten years to recover from a strike. How long does it take to recover from what we just went through?
I would like to tie this back to my last couple of emails. This scenario is yet another potential negative feedback loop that could cause additional students to opt out of the district, putting additional pressure on revenues and exacerbating the situation. If this plays out, the district will continue to be an exporter of talent (both students and teachers) and lessor of education-related properties.
Dave
Monday, July 7, 2008
Alternative Proposals
[You can download the zip file associated with this post from here.]
I received questions concerning whether or not the other 5 options actually existed. Actually even one of our School Board Members questioned whether or not they existed. It could very well be that the School Board Members did not know these existed.
So, on Monday, I requested that the parents involved in researching the documents send me any documentation of the 5 proposals so that I could pass it along to the School Board Member and parents.
I sent it to that School Board Member. I have attached it to this email as well.
In analyzing the document, a number of questions came up:
* At first I thought the colors of the plan were to avoid numbering the plans and thereby creating some order. Then, I noticed the options were Green, Yellow, and Red as the top three -- the colors in a stoplight. Perceiving order is natural at that point.
* Why is Weaver moving to Edgewood in all 5 options -- were no other options even considered? Although other alternatives existed (including keeping the STEM at Edgewood), no other alternatives appear to have even been considered. This appears to play into the "Perfect Storm" theory that Weaver is and always was considered the only option. I just had a hard time believing it.
* One interesting thing to note is that Garden City Elementary is actually in the Green plan -- not Osseo Elementary.
Bottom line: Alternative options did exist and were intentionally kept from the community despite requests for public information.
I received questions concerning whether or not the other 5 options actually existed. Actually even one of our School Board Members questioned whether or not they existed. It could very well be that the School Board Members did not know these existed.
So, on Monday, I requested that the parents involved in researching the documents send me any documentation of the 5 proposals so that I could pass it along to the School Board Member and parents.
I sent it to that School Board Member. I have attached it to this email as well.
In analyzing the document, a number of questions came up:
* At first I thought the colors of the plan were to avoid numbering the plans and thereby creating some order. Then, I noticed the options were Green, Yellow, and Red as the top three -- the colors in a stoplight. Perceiving order is natural at that point.
* Why is Weaver moving to Edgewood in all 5 options -- were no other options even considered? Although other alternatives existed (including keeping the STEM at Edgewood), no other alternatives appear to have even been considered. This appears to play into the "Perfect Storm" theory that Weaver is and always was considered the only option. I just had a hard time believing it.
* One interesting thing to note is that Garden City Elementary is actually in the Green plan -- not Osseo Elementary.
Bottom line: Alternative options did exist and were intentionally kept from the community despite requests for public information.
Voting Records Misrepresentation
[This is an email from Tracy Krasnoff to the School Board outlining denials by the District that Voter Registration Lists were ever used.]
District 279 School Board Members and members of the District 279 Community:
In regards to the issues regarding the Weaver Lake parents voting records I was appalled to read that Susan had this information on January 28th. I myself spoke with Susan on April 3rd in regards to my email- dated March 25th- to her and the school board after I requested the voting records to clear the names of the Save Weaver Leadership group. During the phone conversation with Susan she adamantly denied ever having seen our voting records and told me that her administration did not have the time to waste on such matters. She also explained that it took her from March 25th until April 3rd to respond because she could not figure out why I thought she had said that 9 out of 11 of us did not vote. She then went on to say that she had spent the week investigating where this rumor had come from and discovered that someone on the vote yes committee had requested the voting records but only to determine why the vote had failed never to look into individuals. She also was very adamant in that she had never had any interest in who had and had not voted and that people often said untrue things about her and that I needed to understand this and should not believe everything I hear. During this phone conversation she also told me that she had reviewed her emails and did not know why I thought she had the voter information because she could not find anything in her emails.
I have attached both the email I sent to the board and the email I distributed to the Weaver Leadership group on April 3rd after my phone call with Susan and her denial of ever having seen our voting records.
I had not previously disclosed this information because I firmly believed it was only the business of those who had or had not voted and really wasn’t information that anyone else needed. However, at this time I feel that our community needs all of the information they can get to stop this nonsense and work to elect a board and hire a superintendent that we can trust. After reading these emails my trust while already weak has been completely shattered.
Thank you to all of those individuals who have continued to press for answers, you are heroes to all of us and our children, the real victims in this nightmare.
Tracy Krasnoff
District 279 School Board Members and members of the District 279 Community:
In regards to the issues regarding the Weaver Lake parents voting records I was appalled to read that Susan had this information on January 28th. I myself spoke with Susan on April 3rd in regards to my email- dated March 25th- to her and the school board after I requested the voting records to clear the names of the Save Weaver Leadership group. During the phone conversation with Susan she adamantly denied ever having seen our voting records and told me that her administration did not have the time to waste on such matters. She also explained that it took her from March 25th until April 3rd to respond because she could not figure out why I thought she had said that 9 out of 11 of us did not vote. She then went on to say that she had spent the week investigating where this rumor had come from and discovered that someone on the vote yes committee had requested the voting records but only to determine why the vote had failed never to look into individuals. She also was very adamant in that she had never had any interest in who had and had not voted and that people often said untrue things about her and that I needed to understand this and should not believe everything I hear. During this phone conversation she also told me that she had reviewed her emails and did not know why I thought she had the voter information because she could not find anything in her emails.
I have attached both the email I sent to the board and the email I distributed to the Weaver Leadership group on April 3rd after my phone call with Susan and her denial of ever having seen our voting records.
I had not previously disclosed this information because I firmly believed it was only the business of those who had or had not voted and really wasn’t information that anyone else needed. However, at this time I feel that our community needs all of the information they can get to stop this nonsense and work to elect a board and hire a superintendent that we can trust. After reading these emails my trust while already weak has been completely shattered.
Thank you to all of those individuals who have continued to press for answers, you are heroes to all of us and our children, the real victims in this nightmare.
Tracy Krasnoff
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Data Analysis II
[This is an email published with permission from Dave Lunt concerning the projected enrollment figures.]
Superintendent Hintz and Board Members:
The second half of this analysis is potentially more sensitive, which is part of the reason I split things up. As you are well aware, the demographics of the district have changed. You may be less aware of the magnitude and how the trends relate to the outflows discussed in the first part of this analysis.
I could only work with the generalities defined within the information at hand. Students are divided into two broad buckets: white; and minority (which I refer to as “other”). I don’t believe that this is a race issue as much as it is a function of circumstances that tend to be correlated with race, or, alternatively, east versus west, in our district. For the record, diversity is one of the big reasons that my wife and I choose to have our children in public rather than private school.
As you can see from the attached graphs and table, white enrollment has fallen a cumulative 30% (4% annually), while other enrollment has increased 115% (9% annually). Half of the decline in white enrollment is due to migration (the other half is “natural” as defined in Hazel’s report). On the flip side, 68% of the increase in other enrollment is due to migration. As a result of these trends, white enrollment is currently 57% of total, down from 80%. At this pace, we’ll be 50/50 in less than five years.
This trend is evident across both elementary and secondary schools, although from slightly different bases. For example, white kindergarten enrollment declined from 77% of total to 56% of total, while white twelfth-grade enrollment declined from 85% of total to 65%. I suspect that the higher percentage of white students in upper grades has to do with relative dropout rates. First grade is currently 52% white.
The number of students receiving free lunch nearly doubled, rising 8% annually. Those receiving reduced lunch rose 16% (2% per year). Total free and reduced lunch rose 70% or 6% per year. Approximately 31% of students received lunch benefits, up from 18%.
The population of English Language Learners rose over 400% (20% annually), increasing from 2% of enrollment to 10%.
The number of special education students increased 22% (2% annually), rising from 10% of enrollment to 12%.
Fortunately, the challenging changes in mix don’t appear to have materially impacted average test scores. I believe that the teachers deserve the credit. However, I question whether we can expect them to produce the same results if current trends remain in place, especially with larger class sizes. If test scores fall, it will initiate another negative feedback loop in the process.
Putting both pieces together, the district is losing students to alternative choices. The data suggest those leaving the district come from very different circumstances and have very different needs from those entering the district. The changing mix of students makes the district far more reliant on state and federal funding of mandated programs, which, as we all know, is paid with a lag and not paid in full.
These trends also have meaningful implications for levy votes. Needless to say, those opting into the district can’t vote on our levy. Those opting out of the district don’t have the same vested interest and are less likely to vote in favor. I also suspect that the changes in mix impact the percentage of eligible voters with a vested interest as well. When a levy fails by a couple of hundred votes, these swing factors could more than account for the difference.
I am concerned that our district is following the well-worn path of other districts in major metropolitan areas. Those that can leave, do. Those that can’t, stay. As a result, public schools become dominated by lower income and special needs students.
I believe our district is at (if not beyond) a tipping point. Therein lies your challenge. My concern is that actions (particularly the latest round of cuts) are fueling rather than countering these trends.
I don’t believe the district has a strategic plan. It has a mission/philosophy/values statement. While an important first step, it is insufficient. A strategic plan begins with an assessment of the entity and the environment, what is commonly referred to as a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats). I believe all of these trends deserve consideration in a strategic plan. A strategic plan is proactive not reactive and defines measurable objectives. A strategic plan typically also has at least a five-year time horizon. Thus it is inappropriate to marry the term “strategic” with next year’s budget. Needless to say, an annual budget should be consistent with a strategic plan. But, an annual budget is not strategic, it is tactical.
The administration and the board should be focusing on these issues, with genuine input from parents every step of the way. If this doesn’t happen, the district’s path is set.
Dave
Superintendent Hintz and Board Members:
The second half of this analysis is potentially more sensitive, which is part of the reason I split things up. As you are well aware, the demographics of the district have changed. You may be less aware of the magnitude and how the trends relate to the outflows discussed in the first part of this analysis.
I could only work with the generalities defined within the information at hand. Students are divided into two broad buckets: white; and minority (which I refer to as “other”). I don’t believe that this is a race issue as much as it is a function of circumstances that tend to be correlated with race, or, alternatively, east versus west, in our district. For the record, diversity is one of the big reasons that my wife and I choose to have our children in public rather than private school.
As you can see from the attached graphs and table, white enrollment has fallen a cumulative 30% (4% annually), while other enrollment has increased 115% (9% annually). Half of the decline in white enrollment is due to migration (the other half is “natural” as defined in Hazel’s report). On the flip side, 68% of the increase in other enrollment is due to migration. As a result of these trends, white enrollment is currently 57% of total, down from 80%. At this pace, we’ll be 50/50 in less than five years.
This trend is evident across both elementary and secondary schools, although from slightly different bases. For example, white kindergarten enrollment declined from 77% of total to 56% of total, while white twelfth-grade enrollment declined from 85% of total to 65%. I suspect that the higher percentage of white students in upper grades has to do with relative dropout rates. First grade is currently 52% white.
The number of students receiving free lunch nearly doubled, rising 8% annually. Those receiving reduced lunch rose 16% (2% per year). Total free and reduced lunch rose 70% or 6% per year. Approximately 31% of students received lunch benefits, up from 18%.
The population of English Language Learners rose over 400% (20% annually), increasing from 2% of enrollment to 10%.
The number of special education students increased 22% (2% annually), rising from 10% of enrollment to 12%.
Fortunately, the challenging changes in mix don’t appear to have materially impacted average test scores. I believe that the teachers deserve the credit. However, I question whether we can expect them to produce the same results if current trends remain in place, especially with larger class sizes. If test scores fall, it will initiate another negative feedback loop in the process.
Putting both pieces together, the district is losing students to alternative choices. The data suggest those leaving the district come from very different circumstances and have very different needs from those entering the district. The changing mix of students makes the district far more reliant on state and federal funding of mandated programs, which, as we all know, is paid with a lag and not paid in full.
These trends also have meaningful implications for levy votes. Needless to say, those opting into the district can’t vote on our levy. Those opting out of the district don’t have the same vested interest and are less likely to vote in favor. I also suspect that the changes in mix impact the percentage of eligible voters with a vested interest as well. When a levy fails by a couple of hundred votes, these swing factors could more than account for the difference.
I am concerned that our district is following the well-worn path of other districts in major metropolitan areas. Those that can leave, do. Those that can’t, stay. As a result, public schools become dominated by lower income and special needs students.
I believe our district is at (if not beyond) a tipping point. Therein lies your challenge. My concern is that actions (particularly the latest round of cuts) are fueling rather than countering these trends.
I don’t believe the district has a strategic plan. It has a mission/philosophy/values statement. While an important first step, it is insufficient. A strategic plan begins with an assessment of the entity and the environment, what is commonly referred to as a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats). I believe all of these trends deserve consideration in a strategic plan. A strategic plan is proactive not reactive and defines measurable objectives. A strategic plan typically also has at least a five-year time horizon. Thus it is inappropriate to marry the term “strategic” with next year’s budget. Needless to say, an annual budget should be consistent with a strategic plan. But, an annual budget is not strategic, it is tactical.
The administration and the board should be focusing on these issues, with genuine input from parents every step of the way. If this doesn’t happen, the district’s path is set.
Dave
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Data Analysis Part 1
[This is an email published with permission from Dave Lunt concerning the projected enrollment figures.]
Superintendent Hintz and Board Members:
I've finished crunching some numbers and want to share my observations with you. I don't think any of you will be surprised with the outcome. However, you may not have seen the information presented in this fashion, and the magnitude of the trends may surprise you (as they did me).
As a bit of background, my data quest began about three months ago. During one of the board meetings, John Frederickson commented on the lack of enrollment growth in the west. He stated that, while there was a lot of construction activity, the new households weren't producing children. His comments didn't jibe with my personal observations or the demographic data pulled together by parents during the budgeting process.
At that point, it occurred to me that the lack of enrollment growth in the west may be explained by "leakage" from the district (which I shared with you has been occurring in our neighborhood) rather than birth rates. I subsequently requested some data from Don Pascoe and began my analysis. The information Hazel presented, coupled with what I received from Don in my initial and follow up requests, gave me what I needed to wrap this up.
Hazel indicated she is conducting more research on individual elementary schools, which should provide additional insight. She said it gets much harder to draw conclusions from secondary schools. I look forward to seeing the elementary data too.
Given the amount of data involved, I decided to split my project into two. The first will focus on the net outflow of students from the district. The second will focus on the impact of the flows on the mix of students in the district. Needless to say, both are extremely important and I believe should be closely monitored. I also understand the limitations of the data. Nonetheless, I believe that the numbers are accurate enough to serve as valuable, quantifiable benchmarks.
I have attached a file with some summary data and graphs. Although the graphs speak for themselves, I'll comment on each. One of my former bosses once asked me: "If a picture is worth a thousand words, why do you give us a picture and a thousand words?" I've taken this to heart, and I'll attempt to keep it brief.
District enrollment is flat because the district is losing share to alternatives. Quoting from Hazel’s report: “Competition for K-12 students is likely to increase. Public schools must compete for students.” “Because parents and students have so many options, the capture rate is likely to decrease.” The specific trend in our district is very concerning, and I believe that the situation will be exacerbated by recent decisions.
Extrapolating the current trends out seven years (my youngest son’s time horizon in the district), nearly 3,800 additional students would opt out of the district. At a 1% annualized growth rate, enrollment would increase by about 1,500 students. As a result, the district would be in the red 2,300 students after seven years, which means total enrollment would actually be down 11% seven years out. Flat enrollment is tough enough to deal with. I imagine declining enrollment would be brutal.
In addition, as I will discuss in the next note, the characteristics of the students leaving the district are very different from those coming into the district, which presents other challenges. I believe that these trends are related and potentially reinforcing. More to follow.
Dave
Superintendent Hintz and Board Members:
I've finished crunching some numbers and want to share my observations with you. I don't think any of you will be surprised with the outcome. However, you may not have seen the information presented in this fashion, and the magnitude of the trends may surprise you (as they did me).
As a bit of background, my data quest began about three months ago. During one of the board meetings, John Frederickson commented on the lack of enrollment growth in the west. He stated that, while there was a lot of construction activity, the new households weren't producing children. His comments didn't jibe with my personal observations or the demographic data pulled together by parents during the budgeting process.
At that point, it occurred to me that the lack of enrollment growth in the west may be explained by "leakage" from the district (which I shared with you has been occurring in our neighborhood) rather than birth rates. I subsequently requested some data from Don Pascoe and began my analysis. The information Hazel presented, coupled with what I received from Don in my initial and follow up requests, gave me what I needed to wrap this up.
Hazel indicated she is conducting more research on individual elementary schools, which should provide additional insight. She said it gets much harder to draw conclusions from secondary schools. I look forward to seeing the elementary data too.
Given the amount of data involved, I decided to split my project into two. The first will focus on the net outflow of students from the district. The second will focus on the impact of the flows on the mix of students in the district. Needless to say, both are extremely important and I believe should be closely monitored. I also understand the limitations of the data. Nonetheless, I believe that the numbers are accurate enough to serve as valuable, quantifiable benchmarks.
I have attached a file with some summary data and graphs. Although the graphs speak for themselves, I'll comment on each. One of my former bosses once asked me: "If a picture is worth a thousand words, why do you give us a picture and a thousand words?" I've taken this to heart, and I'll attempt to keep it brief.
- Enrollment in the district has been relatively flat, while the population of students in the district footprint has been growing about 1% annually (7% cumulatively) - a net difference of about 1,800 students or $14 million at $8K per student.
- The number of students opting into the district increased 3% annually (23% cumulatively) and has been relatively flat at about 3% of enrollment.
- The number of students opting out of the district in favor of other public or charter schools has been growing 15% annually (160% cumulatively), rising from 3% of enrollment to 9% of enrollment. Enrollment in charter schools has increased 19% annually and is up to 27% of outflows from 22%. Outflows to other districts rose 13% annually.
- As a result, the net negative spread of students opting for other public or charter schools is now over 1,000 students, increasing from 1% of enrollment to 6% of enrollment.
- Robbinsdale accounts for 20% of the outflow. Minneapolis is second (11%), Wayzata third (10%), Anoka-Hennepin fourth (8%), and Brooklyn Center fifth (7%). The percentages drop substantially from there. These five plus charter schools account for 83% of the total.
- Enrollment in private schools rose 5% annually (40% cumulatively), increasing from 7% of enrollment to 10% of enrollment.
- In total, private and public net outflows doubled, increasing 11% annually. Total net outflows rose from 7% of enrollment to 15%. So, the district's capture rate has fallen from nearly 91% to 84%.
District enrollment is flat because the district is losing share to alternatives. Quoting from Hazel’s report: “Competition for K-12 students is likely to increase. Public schools must compete for students.” “Because parents and students have so many options, the capture rate is likely to decrease.” The specific trend in our district is very concerning, and I believe that the situation will be exacerbated by recent decisions.
Extrapolating the current trends out seven years (my youngest son’s time horizon in the district), nearly 3,800 additional students would opt out of the district. At a 1% annualized growth rate, enrollment would increase by about 1,500 students. As a result, the district would be in the red 2,300 students after seven years, which means total enrollment would actually be down 11% seven years out. Flat enrollment is tough enough to deal with. I imagine declining enrollment would be brutal.
In addition, as I will discuss in the next note, the characteristics of the students leaving the district are very different from those coming into the district, which presents other challenges. I believe that these trends are related and potentially reinforcing. More to follow.
Dave
Disturbing Information
The emails that go along with this post can be downloaded here.
I was given some documents last night by the parents that are reviewing the emails from the District. I want to preface what I am about to release with several comments:
I honestly believed that I would be empathizing with the Administration and Board after reading what was provided. They went through an incredibly difficult process. I have difficulty empathizing with at least the Administration at this point.
Please understand that after reading these emails that there are a significant number of supporters out there of the District who will be very hurt by what they will read. I would ask that everyone have compassion and understanding for those whose trust was broken.
With that preface, I am going to pass along several threads of information, the first of which from my position in the legal industry is the most disturbing of all. Susan Hintz instructed her staff to delete files and emails regarding alternative proposals.
HINTZ006008.pdf & FREDERICKSEN000070.pdf (from Susan): "We've had several citizens ask us what the other 5 options were that Teamworks referenced in its proposal that is now posted on the web. [..] Is there any reason that we should NOT pass these on to those who have asked?" Susan's response to her own email: "Since all of us have not been to every meeting, I want to make sure that you know that neither TEAMWORKS or we are giving these to anyone. Please delete from your email and files." [It was bolded in the email. In one email "TEAMWORKS" and "we" are redacted -- no clue as to why in one but not the other.]
NELSON000615.pdf (Susan explaining to a community member and the School Board): "The other options that TEAMWORKS referenced were not part of the materials that the consultant gave us."
Questions: What else is discussed in these meetings? What other information is the District hiding from us? Are the School Board Members aware of such activity?
What is also strange is that from the affidavit filed by the District on June 3, it stated there were 57,000 emails -- approximately half of which were responsive. So, that would mean that there are around 28,500 emails. In the technology business, I happen to know that email data is typically estimated at 2.5 pages per email. That would mean that the FINS group should expect around 71,250 pages. They received around 20,000 pages.
Question: What is being hidden?
FREDERICKSEN000007.pdf (From Susan): "One of the reasons that we hired a consultant is to take some of the heat, so even though the Action Team has helped produce the work, I think that it's important that the report comes from TEAMWORKS."
Questions: What else was Teamworks used as a front for? I am not sure that Teamworks took any of the heat based on what I observed from the School Board.
Voting Registration Records appear to have been evaluated to potentially take credibility away from those talking at Community Comment as well as to evaluate the leadership team of Save District 279. (Of course, that is an opinion, but why else look at Voter Registration Records for those groups?)
HINTZ002648.pdf (Susan): "I hope that you will be able to address the WVR parents, even if it's at Community Comment. What is the best way for the voting information to be shared?" From Susan's staff: "Attached is the listing of all the individuals who voted in the levy election last fall. It includes name, address, phone number and precinct."
HINTZ000281.pdf: "Do you have the list?" "Interesting action they're considering...also interesting that it appears that 2 of the 11 names (18%) listed didn't bother to vote on the levy last November."
The actual voting records, which are public information, were provided to the parents reviewing emails when the District turned over the emails.
Questions: Why even look up who voted? Why not consider other alternatives and concerns rather than trying to discredit? How does checking voting records help this process at all?
There are documents exhibiting less than professional behavior:
HINTZ002265.pdf: "Too bad that you, Kim and I just couldn't have a slumber party tonight."
Questions: Is this how we talk to our superiors? A "slumber party"?
I was hoping that this was it, but the parent's group indicates that there is more to come. The parents are continuing to review each document page-by-page.
I would encourage you to evaluate this in regards to future decisions the School Board and Administration are to make.
I was given some documents last night by the parents that are reviewing the emails from the District. I want to preface what I am about to release with several comments:
With that preface, I am going to pass along several threads of information, the first of which from my position in the legal industry is the most disturbing of all. Susan Hintz instructed her staff to delete files and emails regarding alternative proposals.
Questions: What else is discussed in these meetings? What other information is the District hiding from us? Are the School Board Members aware of such activity?
What is also strange is that from the affidavit filed by the District on June 3, it stated there were 57,000 emails -- approximately half of which were responsive. So, that would mean that there are around 28,500 emails. In the technology business, I happen to know that email data is typically estimated at 2.5 pages per email. That would mean that the FINS group should expect around 71,250 pages. They received around 20,000 pages.
Question: What is being hidden?
Questions: What else was Teamworks used as a front for? I am not sure that Teamworks took any of the heat based on what I observed from the School Board.
Voting Registration Records appear to have been evaluated to potentially take credibility away from those talking at Community Comment as well as to evaluate the leadership team of Save District 279. (Of course, that is an opinion, but why else look at Voter Registration Records for those groups?)
The actual voting records, which are public information, were provided to the parents reviewing emails when the District turned over the emails.
Questions: Why even look up who voted? Why not consider other alternatives and concerns rather than trying to discredit? How does checking voting records help this process at all?
There are documents exhibiting less than professional behavior:
Questions: Is this how we talk to our superiors? A "slumber party"?
I was hoping that this was it, but the parent's group indicates that there is more to come. The parents are continuing to review each document page-by-page.
I would encourage you to evaluate this in regards to future decisions the School Board and Administration are to make.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
