LCSD Meeting Roundup and Analysis

UPDATE 9/16/08 8:35 AM: Check out this comment from Allen:

Or maybe they have been trying to bargain with him and not getting very far. They may have the votes to oust him, as they only need three, but are trying to keep it smooth. They could be trying to put pressure on him by putting it out into the public arena. Robinson doesn't feel the public wants him gone, and the board may be trying to get the public to push for robinson to go.

I received an email that guessed the same thing: That there has been an attempt to buy him out or get him to leave, and it's failed thus far, and that the resolution is essentially the first step in making the effort public by putting public pressure on Robinson. Personally, I doubt it will move him an inch. The other big difference is that the emailer is guessing the board does not have the votes to terminate him directly, at least not yet.

END UPDATE


Note: Please, please please comment! I want to know what people are thinking about this, and would love to see an outpouring in the comments to this post. There's certainly a ton to talk about. (One request, though: If you do comment, please pick an alias that's not 'anonymous', just so everyone else can tell everyone apart and when the same person is commenting multiple times. Thanks.)

Disclaimer: This post may be worse than usual pretty terrible; I've definitely been off my blogging game lately. Consider yourself warned.

So, as one commenter asked on the liveblog post, what in the world happened at the LCSD board's special session on Monday evening? What does the resolution mean?

First, the basic order of events:

1. The board met in special session at 6 PM to talk about the Superintendent. There were rumors abound, but all I could have said for sure is that it was about the superintendent. My guess is that it was in reaction to the math meeting. The most common rumor I heard suggested the board wanted to oust the Superintendent.

2. As noted in the liveblog, the special session went on for about 75 minutes. At 7 PM, Steve Kelley emerged and told the assembled audience (I'd guess 90% of the seats were filled) that it would be 15-20 more minutes.

3. At about 7:15, the board emerged and began the public part of the meeting; on the agenda was a single action item, dealing with the Superintendent. Russ McUne made a motion to approve a resolution, which he read. Debi Shimmin seconded. There was no discussion, and the vote was 5-0 (Fisher voted for it; I confirmed this.) The audience clapped when the resolution was read and when it passed; otherwise, it was pin-drop silent in the room throughout the whole process (the silence after Wineteer asked for discussion was incredible). It was like everyone (including me) was holding their breath.

4. The board had an audience comments section following the vote. There was one comment, a statement by someone named Dave Champion (I am assuming he is a parent; please correct me if I'm wrong). Many parents had all signed up to speak and were prepared to cede their time to him if necessary. The statement was in regards to LHS, math, and the expectations of parents for the 9/24 meeting; I assume it was written by parents. I don't have a copy of it, but I got a lot of in the liveblog post.

5. With no more audience comments, Wineteer closed the meeting at 7:23 PM.

The Resolution

First, the full text of the resolution:

WHEREAS, the relationship between the Superintendent and the Lebanon Community School District Board of Directors has broken down, resulting in poor communication and failure to work cooperatively on District goals; and

WHEREAS, the Lebanon Community School District Board of Directors is greatly concerned that the breakdown in its relationship with the Superintendent has caused the focus away from day-to-day business of the District as well as student achievement; and

WHEREAS, the Lebanon Community School District Board of Directors believes that the current working relationship is irreparable; and

WHEREAS, the Lebanon Community School District Board of Directors is concerned about the further harm to both the morale of the District staff as well as the well-being of the community; now, therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED by the Lebanon Community School District Board of Directors that it is in the best interest of the School District and the Lebanon community that Superintendent Robinson and the Board of Directors enter into negotiations toward mutually acceptable terms for an immediate resignation of Superintendent. [All funny grammar in the original.]

But (you're probably screaming by now) WHAT THE $%(& DOES IT MEAN?!?!?

I don't actually know. But I have a guess.

Let's go back, for a second, to the fact that there were all sorts of rumors flying about what was on the executive session agenda: the big one is that it was about the ousting of Robinson. I've heard this rumor three or four times since June, and it's never panned out - things were actually pretty calm on the School Board front over the summer. This time, however, I believed the rumor. The special session, the math meeting, the recall election - all point in the direction of an angry school board with a mind to act. So personally, I think the action item on the agenda was, in some form, the removal of Robinson.

And I think it failed. I think the resolution was what resulted.

Look at it this way: A resolution like that is not Alexander's style, and I could barely believe Wineteer would go for it. It is Shimmin's style, and frankly, probably McUne's as well. It also contains several grammar errors or strange phrasings, which suggests it was written in the meeting itself, not beforehand (though I obviously can't rule out the latter).

My guess: Alexander and Wineteer wanted Robinson gone, right then and there. Shimmin was on the fence. McUne might have been on the fence as well. Fisher was almost certainly opposed to ousting him at the meeting. I place both Robinson's attorney and the district counsel in the executive session (UPDATE: I have been told Robinson was not in the executive session; I assume that means his attorney was not either). Combine that with McUne or Wineteer (I can't remember which) noting that the discussion the board had in private was with the advice of counsel, and I suspect McUne and/or Shimmin (though probably the latter) was persuaded against an immediate termination on some sort of legal grounds, though I'm not sure what they would have been.

So some combination of board members, Dakopolos and Robinson convince the rest of the board that an immediate termination would be worse (and here I drop a rumor: far worse) than the alternative, which turned out to be that resolution.

So that's my guess about the executive session. What about the resolution itself? What does it mean?

Again, this is conjecture - I could be wrong, and I don't have special access to information, so please take my words in light of my reasoning and the evidence I present.

I think it means the board decided on it with little to no input from Robinson. The big question even I have is whether or not it forces/obligates Robinson to enter into negotiations (the rumor is that it does not, but I do not know for sure). If it does, he may yet disappear by the end of 2008. If it doesn't - well, he might still disappear by the end of the year, but his position for negotiating the terms of his disappearance are much, much stronger.

My gut reaction? That the board members who wanted Robinson gone failed this time, and that even if it obligates him to negotiate, it says nothing about how hard-nosed he can be when negotiating the terms of his resignation. And if there's one thing I think Robinson can do, it's be hard-nosed (at least I'd be shocked if he was anything but). Remember, as little credibility as he has with a certain portion of the community, he's done a darn effective job of staying out of the media/public eye recently, and you can be sure the negotiations will take place behind closed doors (if they did not, I'd be floored). And that Alexander has not suggested that he's willing to spend much money to see Robinson gone (or, at the least, that a big buy-out would hurt the district, run contrary to what Alexander says about money, and anger some parents and community members). My guess is that Robinson could just ask for a giant buyout and put the board in a really hard position - and remember, even if it makes Robinson look bad, he'd be gone, and could probably retire. To be perfectly blunt, what would he care if there are people in Lebanon who dislike him? He'd be retired.

What happens next?

Well, either the negotiations will result in Robinson leaving willingly, or not. (As banal as that statement sounds, it's still consequential.) Oh, if they result in his leaving, that part of the saga is over (and everyone moves on to the part where the board tries to hire a new superintendent, which will be hi-larious). On the other hand, if the negotiations fail to result in Robinson's leaving, I can see two reasons (though I'm sure I'm overlooking more than one) for that:

1) Robinson fights it, possibly through negotiations or through legal action. What happens here is anyone's guess. (Though my personal guess is that it will be bloody and my cynical *** will laugh and cry. A lot.)

2) Something else happens - like the recall - that derails the whole 'Robinson-is-leaving' process, and then the LCSD is back to having Robinson as a superintendent who has had his contract non-renewed at least once. Not really sure what happens then, either, though it's a safe bet that some parents will continue to be pissed.

3) Something else. What - I'm not omniscient, and I don't have any more information than anyone else. Your guess really is as good (or better) than mine; I just take the time to post mine online.

In Which I Muse Aloud on What Could Have Been, or Still Be

This is essentially a giant aside. Skip it if you want to stick to the meeting. Keep reading if you want to know what I think Alexander should do if he wants to get rid of Robinson.

One thing that's always bugged me about the last few years of the LCSD Board of Directors' actions is that for all Alexander and Wineteer's talk, they really, really are just terrible at getting rid of Robinson. So, here's what I would do were I in their position and wanted to see Robinson gone.

I would do something like what happened tonight with the resolution, except I'd change the last paragraph from seeking his resignation to setting out conditions for his continued employment.

Then I'd make those conditions some combination of EXACTLY the processes, procedures and programs I wanted Robinson to follow and impossibly high goals. I'd find a way to make it stick (maybe it would have to be done in conjuction with a terrible evaluation and something like a plan of assistance). Then I'd wait for Robinson to either do exactly what the board demanded (in which case the board wins, assuming it really is about the students and not Alexander hating on Robinson), or for Robinson to fail to meet the impossibly high standards (which would give the board, I assume, a legal fig leaf to hide behind when firing him), or Robinson to give up and leave of his own accord.

In two of the three scenarios, Robinson is gone. In the other, the board gets EXACTLY what it wants. Again assuming this is ultimately about education (which is, to me, an increasingly bad assumption), the board wins.

Frankly, I think nothing like this has happened because a) Alexander really has no idea what the hell is going on in regards to education; b) Alexander is not patient enough to pursue this kind of strategy; possibly also c) Alexander cares more about getting rid of Robinson than education, for whatever reason.

In any case, as much as Robinson has angered certain portions of the community, I'm going to keep hammering on the same points until things change: At least the guy's got some idea of the need to face the 21st century when it comes to education. The board, thus far, does not appear to. As well, process matters. If something like removing Robinson is going to stick, it has to be done in a way that doesn't result in - as one commenter alluded to - an atomic bomb being dropped on the district. Again, so far Alexander and Wineteer seem to unable to figure out how to do this within the constraints handed to them.

So that's the aside. Now back to your regularly scheduled blogging.

Conclusion(s)

Well, the recall election and effort is going forward; this much I know.

The effort to oust Robinson (because I do think that's what it was) tonight failed.

There is one more regular board meeting between now and the date of the recall election, scheduled for - do you believe it! - October 6th, the day before the polls close and ballots are counted. Last chances and all that.

There is another math meeting scheduled for September 24th (contact the LCSD for details; I don't have them), which might be explosive, given that all accounts have Finch as not being very responsive to anyone, and that parents collectively demanded answers from him at tonight's board meeting.

The board could always call a special session.

There may or may not be negotiations between the LCSD Board of Directors and Superintendent Robinson over his resignation.

A certain math teacher may or may not still be regretting noting he doesn't grade homework (for what it's worth, I had him as a teacher, and he's phenomenally good and dedicated to his job; it would be folly to do anything but listen to what he has to say).

Word is coming around (expect more on this in the next few days) about some very, very interesting data on the math scores in Lebanon when compared to Sand Ridge, Corvallis, Sweet Home, and the state as a whole.

Oh, and one more thing: If nothing else, I am becoming more and more convinced that LHS Principal Mark Finch needs to start appearing (or actually being) more responsive to parents and the community. It costs him nothing and may save him from a crowd armed with torches and pitchforks - and that's meant literally - even as I note, as I did at LT's blog, that I think mid-September is far too early to call for his head.

Soon: More on the math situation, including, I hope, something like actual data.

Also coming soon: the text of Wineteer and Alexander's statements about the recall. (Remember, they were to resign or submit 200 words justifying their continued presence on the board as a result of there being enough signature gathered.)

My hands are tired, and so am I. That's all you get for now.

Liveblogging the LCSD Special Session

I will try and liveblog the LCSD Special Session that's happening Monday, in case anyone wants to follow along. Consider yourself forewarned.

6:50 PM - Just got situated and online. There is no sign of the board and the room is almost full already. Wow.

7 PM - Kelley came out to announce that Wineteer told him they'd be another 15-20 minutes. Kelley had a really big smile plastered on his face.

7:15 PM - There are a lot of older white men in suits in the room, all carrying leather cases. I could be wrong, but they all look like attorneys. Meeting is starting.

Other notable attendees: Lyndon Brown, Jay Jackson, the Bauers, Tre Kennedy, Joyce Weatherly, etc.

7:16 PM - McUne makes motion "Whereas relationship between LCSD board and Superintendent has broken down, and that breakdown has caused a loss of focus on student achievement, and that etc. etc..... be it resolved that Superintendent and Board enter into agreement regarding negotiations about resignation of superintendent."

Shimmin seconds.

No discussion.

Vote: Unanimous (did not hear Fisher vote).

Room is alternating between shocked silence and applause.

Holy crap.

7:17 PM - Floor is open to audience comments.

Dave Champion - representing a number of parents in the audience. Noted that parents have signed in and ceded time to Dave. Has prepared statement on behalf of parents to read.

.... parents want to engage administrators and staff at LHS in constructive dialogue

List of requests from parents regarding 9/24 public meeting:

1. Linda Denham (??) a chance to speak.

2. Rep from teaching staff share thoughts on parent involvement, student performance, what they need from parents.

3. Group that visited Oregon City and Forest Grove present their findings.

4. List of concerns to be addressed and commented on by Mr. Finch at public meeting.
4a. That the academy system is not helpful.
4b. Cross-academy territorialism and intimidation is a bad thing [Dennis agrees wholeheartedly]
4c. Scheduling is fragmented, and this is problematic, especially for math.
4d. Suggested that forming departments rather than academies would be better.
4e. Early notification of parents. Want active, rather than passive, communication regarding the status of their children.
4f. Class schedules delivered too late. Need before first day of class - want at least two weeks before the start of class - and want staff available to address schedule corrections as required.
4g. Concerned that students are advanced a grade even when underperforming (defined as D or F). Worried about students falling further behind.

Concludes @ 7:23 PM.

Wineteer: Can we have a written copy?

Special session is over. Wineteer adjourns.

Maybe it's time to tighten up that comment policy

DH education reporter Jennifer Moody has a story on the website dealing with dual-language education programs and the possible effects of Measure 58, which would limit the amount of non-English instruction for K-12 students to two years:

Jones will teach her second-graders in Spanish for half the school day. In the afternoon, they’ll move next door, speaking and hearing only English, while Jones works in Spanish with the group who spent the morning on the English side.

Dual-language immersion programs have been a popular option at Corvallis schools for about nine years. But their future is uncertain under an initiative on the November ballot, Measure 58, which would limit the time children can spend in classes taught in languages other than English.

I would encourage you to read the story; it's got some good information. The comments, however, are not as encouraging. There were three when I checked (just scroll down to the bottom of the story):

steveo wrote on Sep 14, 2008 7:38 AM:

" Its a sad day when schools start getting sued for not providing dual language classes, We have a common language to interact with each other and where will this stop 7 or 8 languages more with all this given to diffrent languages what will our children learn so they can make it in the world. It seeems we are becoming a nation to cater and I worry the basics will be lost and in the end more kids lossing the fundementals which they will need but I guess if we can all talk we can be more like our goverment talk,talk but get little done. "

I am tempted to make a comment about fundamentals and steveo's grasp of the written word. Moving on:

btrflygirl67 wrote on Sep 14, 2008 6:20 PM:

" I agree with Sizemore !!! We should be focusing on English. If Parents want their children to learn Spanish- Hire a tutor or HEY BUY A BOOK AND TEACH IT AT HOME!! I worry that we will be voting soon whether or not we have to choose if English or Spanish is our "first" language- C'mon People wake up!!!! "

And, of course, the it's-so-cliche-you-mean-it's-not-parody comment:

gmham wrote on Sep 15, 2008 8:39 AM:

" this isn't mexico or any other country!!!!!!!! this is america!!!!!!!!!!! if you don't like our language, which is english, then get the heck out and go home!!!!!!!!! talk about discrimation, why aren't there classes taught in chinese or russian??? i am sick of my kid coming home complaining he didn't understand things in class because it was taught in spanish..........i think it is about time to sue the school district myself for discriminating against my child for being american and speaking english.......it is a bunch of bull....."

I want to be clear about two things:

1) Dual-language programs have basically zero downsides. People who go through them are more employable, more able to move about in different cultures (and different countries), speak two languages, build community with more diverse groups and at younger ages, etc. Yes, it's a struggle to learn another language, but it's also much easier to do at an early age. Have I failed at learning another langauge as a teen and adult? Yes. Do I wish I'd had Spanish/English dual language when I was in elementary school? Heck yes.

2) The comments made about the story are racist and ignorant of history. I wish I could say I was surprised that the DH approved them, but I'm not (sometimes the "let them hang themselves" thing is outweighed by the harm that's done by posting the comments). Furthermore, the comments have little, if anything, to do with the actual story, but are instead reactions to a fear of a generalized Other. One might also call it xenophobia.

Sigh. Between this and the imminent and massive financial meltdown (and it's only Monday), I suppose it's time I retreat to my hideout in the Cascades and start the guerrilla radio broadcasts calling for the overthrow of the remnants of capitalism. I don't know how else I'm going to survive the week.

Tim Wise on white privilege and the election

Found at Eric Stoller's place, here is the opening paragraph of Wise's essay:

For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for an easy-to-understand example of it, perhaps this list will help.

Follow the link for the list.

The LHS math meeting and small groups

I've been thinking about the intended use of small groups by Finch and Behn at the math meeting, and the crowd reaction to it. Here's what I came up with:

Small groups are a big part of education theory. They have been for some time, and for good reason (basically, they are effective). I can see why Finch and Behn would have wanted small groups in this case (aside from LT's point about protecting the math teachers). However, I can also see two roadblocks; the first is that parents aren't aware of the history of small groups in education, and the administrators (presumably) didn't bother to explain them; the second is that Finch mandated their use, and failed to get buy-in from parents.

Both reflect poorly on Mr. Finch. Yes, it would have been nice to see more parents participate, but ultimately, if my dumb *** can figure out that you need buy-in from angry parents, and that some parents just wanted to be heard, and that you might need to explain the why of something to the crowd, then it should have been obvious for someone in Finch's position.

Note that I am not addressing the possibility that there were some parents who were just out for blood, or wanted to place blame, either on the administration or individual teachers. (And while the above may be true of some parents, it certainly can't be true of all parents.) Rather, I am addressing the use of small groups and how that use appears to have been communicated to the crowd. Or something; all the caffeine is really failing to make up for my lack of sleep today.

Hering on the math meeting

Hering's disdain for research (learning?) is never more obvious when he writes about something I've been following closely. For example, the Lebanon Community School District recall. Hering:

The Lebanon school system now is embroiled in the attempted recall of two board members. But strangely, these are the very board members who do not believe the school administration is doing a good enough job.

If I were McUne, Fisher or Shimmin, I'd be pretty annoyed at the insinuation that I think the administration is doing a good job. I think there's consensus that all is not right in the LCSD, especially when it comes to math at LHS. The difference seems to lie more in approach: McUne, Fisher, and (most of the time) Shimmin are willing to follow the law and proper procedure to get something done, whereas Alexander and Wineteer have shown themselves willing to put the district in a position of legal liability as well as bypass anything resembling democratic, deliberative decision-making in Alexander's quest to get rid of Robinson.

I also want to parse a few more claims from Hering's editorial, starting with this statement:

Suppose you run a public high school and do it in such a way that almost half the students enrolled get F’s in a course. Suppose parents are worried and turn up in large numbers to express their concern. Do you let them talk and listen to what they have to say? Or do you insist on talking to them first, then channel them into “small groups” so whatever they say is heard by only a few in each case? [emphasis added]

Was the LHS administration supposed to say nothing? Even if the format had been for the administrators to listen the big group, someone would have had to start the meeting and lay down some ground rules, make introductions, thank people for coming, etc. Insinuating that there was a problem with administrators saying something at the beginning of the meeting is just stupid. (Bear in mind Hering makes no claims about what the administrators said, merely that they - *gasp* - talked at the beginning.)

Hering does get one thing exactly right:

Sure, it’s tough for an administrator to sit there and let a crowd of people beat up on them with words. But letting people speak openly is still the best way to convince them that they’ve had a chance to speak and be heard.

I was a little surprised that Finch and Behn didn't do this. To be blunt, it would have cost them nothing, and would have got them some amount of credibility with parents.

Anyway, back to the point: If Hering is seriously going to claim that it's not a good idea to try and recall two board members while the district is having math problems at LHS, either Hering doesn't care Alexander and Wineteer's actions have been ethically and legally sketchy for years, or he hasn't bothered to find out. Neither reflects well on him.

More and more, I'm buying into the idea that Alexander and Wineteer actually can't get rid of Robinson (at least without some large and decidedly negative fallout), due to a combination of having nuked their own credibility and an unwillingness to give more than lip service to following the law and other necessary procedures.

More Palin

My coworker, upon hearing that Sarah Palin doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is:

"She sucks. She's the suckiest suck that ever sucked. I can't wait until she becomes President."

Even I am amazed. Said coworker is normally much mellower than that. And, to be fair, much less sexist* in her choice of language. But I think the point holds.



*Disclaimer: Pointing out that Palin is totally unqualified using traditional metrics is not sexist. The word suck is, as are, arguably, traditional metrics.

Recall Math

An observation about the whole situation, sent to me via email:

I think the whole math issue may very well end up saving Alexander and Wineteer from being recalled.

Sounds plausible. Not good, but plausible. CARES might want to make note of that.

Recall effort gathers enough signatures to have election

From the Express:

Linn County Clerk Steve Druckenmiller announced on Wednesday that enough signatures had been verified to trigger a recall election on Oct. 7 of Lebanon School Board chair Josh Wineteer and vice chair Rick Alexander.

Alexander and Wineteer each have until Sept.15 either resign or submit a 200-word statement addressing the allegations made about their performance in the recall petition. The board members' statements as well as the statement justifying the recall by the chief petitioners will appear on the ballot.

....

Druckenmiller said he had his staff quit counting after they had verified over 1,500 signatures on each recall petition, well above the 1,398 required to force an election.

To busy to comment, but, uh, damn. Is everyone holding on tight? The ride is starting...

I think I found some irony; anyone want some? I have extra....

For those of you who know what I do for work....

Yesterday, one of my bosses told me I need to put in significantly more hours. I'm working ~9 hours per day already, and have never objected to coming in earlier or staying later when asked.

One some level, my brain is protesting the dissonance, I'm sure.

... just to be clear, what gets me is that it's being presented as an order (and since I'm salaried, there's no extra benefit involved). Anyone else see the irony?