tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post8380763236733518493..comments2024-03-28T02:21:17.452-07:00Comments on Seattle Schools Community Forum: Executive Committee Steps Up (Part Two)Melissa Westbrookhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17179994245880629080noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-42639628957162928892010-12-06T07:36:17.681-08:002010-12-06T07:36:17.681-08:00I find the biggest culpability is with Superintend...I find the biggest culpability is with Superintendents and CAOs who instigate these deceptive requests. Brad began Cherry-Picking data for the Everyday Math Proposal for Carla Santorno.<br /><br />Our current Superintendent and CAO produced an incredibly inaccurate action report for the 2-3-10 NTN contract vote. The Action Report did not match the included NTN Contract additionally the action report contained numerous false statements as well.<br /><br />Among the false statements was graduation rate at NT Sacramento, which Director Sundquist chose to promote after his visit with "<b><i>Students are apparently graduating at a high rate</i></b>". Action Report used on 2-3-10 said 98% graduation rate but Directors were sent CA DOE information documenting that the <i><b>actual cohort graduation rates were 37% and 44% </b></i>for the two NT Sacramento classes that had graduated. 37% and 44%, two numbers Director Sundquist chose to ignore. <b><i>He chose to tell the public about "apparently high graduation rates" rather than actual verified cohort graduation rates. <br /><br />WOW!!! Is this our next School Board president? What a combo he will make with MGJ.</i></b><br /><br />In response to NTN appeal filing in Superior Court on 3-5 <b><i>the Superintendent and CAO responded with a fraudulent Action Report on 3-12.</i></b> Then in May the District submitted an evidence filing which included a 1-29-2010 "draft" memo masquerading as the original memo sent to the Board on which the Action Report was supposedly based and the CAO signed the filing submission to the court.<br /><br />In the production of the 3-12-10 NTN action report the Superintendent and CAO were apparently involved in the Class C felony of forgery. <b><i>MGJ fails to do job on regular basis. Not only do with the 17% fiasco ..... Now we have the 66% fiasco.</i></b><br /><br />When it is NOT possible to meet the goals of the Strategic Plan, "NO Problem" make up 66% <b><i>a new way to look at "students making progress", which has nothing to do with students making progress but claims to do so. Misleading the Public and Public Officials has become a regular occurrence for the SPS Superintendent.</i></b><br /><br /><a href="http://www.box.net/shared/jk875pr1ru" rel="nofollow">Here is my "first draft"</a> of Board Testimony for Wednesday Dec 8.<br /><br />Note:<br /> There are two contracts being pushed through on Dec. 8 with a one meeting intro/action in violation of Bylaw B45.00. ... just another typical action from MGJ.dan dempseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15536720661510933983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-39964620241851874832010-12-05T12:19:47.641-08:002010-12-05T12:19:47.641-08:00Thank you Seattle Parent. You and Dorothy have mad...Thank you Seattle Parent. You and Dorothy have made clear now that Brad made up ficticious standards. Thank you for checking the HECB standards. I just accepted them at face value, because I never supposed Brad would lie about them. I was mistaken to make that assumption.<br /><br />I wonder what other lies Brad has created and the District has promulgated?<br /><br />This is criminal activity, isn't it?<br /><br />Why did Michael defend Brad? Maybe he doesn't fully understand what we on this blog have come to understand. But at least he is rightly pointing out that Brad isn't the only person in the District with dirty hands in this matter.<br /><br />[A letter to Michael informing him of these facts is in order.]<br /><br />While I hope that Brad (and others) suffer appropriate consequences, I feel sorry for Brad. He probably had a bright future.<br /><br />I hope other district employees see the risk in following this superintendent's lead, and decide following her lead is not worth the risk.<br /><br />I hope other Broad Residents see the risk in following the Broad's lead.<br /><br />When people realize their actions could lead to criminal records, I bet they will straighten up.Joan NEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810050976533673804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-61877474735267439262010-12-04T14:12:59.550-08:002010-12-04T14:12:59.550-08:00(I just wrote a reply to Joan which went into the ...(I just wrote a reply to Joan which went into the black hole, so here is the shorter version)<br /><br /><br />Joan NE said, <br />"Brad applied to class of 2007 HECB standards that wouldn't apply for any graduating class prior to 2012.<br /><br />So now it is clear to me that Brad chose standards that were inappropriately high, that would bias the result downward."<br /><br />Joan- check the HECB website directly- the 15 credits for 2007 graduates and 2012 haven't changed (but rather minor revisions). The HECB standards used in the Appendix are simply incorrect (B ave. GPA, 4 math & 3 science credits), so Brad was making up fictious standards, not HECB 2012 standards.<br /><br />I do agree with your conclusion, that the inappropriately high standards (if used specifically as HS graduates meeting the min. HECB college entrance requirements) did "bias the result downward."SPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12726295210572942506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-42872055177292969032010-12-04T13:43:25.296-08:002010-12-04T13:43:25.296-08:00Joan NE says, "Brad applied to class of 2007 ...Joan NE says, "Brad applied to class of 2007 HECB standards that wouldn't apply for any graduating class prior to 2012."<br /><br />No, Brad did not use the actual 2012 HECB requirements (i.e. 3 math credits, 2 science & a "C" GPA)- he upped the bar to a "B" and mis-represented the HECB min. credits at 4 math & 3 science. That is my point, even though the Appendix seems to mistakenly imply that those higher standards are the actual 2012 HECB minimum requirents. <br /><br />I would encourage anyone questioning what is given as a "fact" by the authorities (ie HECB minimum 2012 college entrance requirements) to always go the original source for verification (and I'm not talking about SPS' "The Source"!). It's the only way you can get the whole picture.<br /><br />http://www.hecb.wa.gov/research/<br />issues/admissions.asp <br /><br />Joan, you are assuming that the 2012 HECB entrance credit requirements have changed, but if you go to the HECB website you will see that the basic 15 HECB credit min. college entrance requirements requirements have not changed from those periods we are referring to (although there are minor changes like requiring both science credits to have a lab). There never has been a 4th math credit & 3rd science credit requirement, and is not in the 2012 plan either. <br /><br />Joan- I do agree with most of your conclusion,<br />"So now it is clear to me that Brad chose standards that were inappropriately high, that would bias the result downward". <br />(but the standards used were ficticiously represented in the Appendix as being 2012 HECB standards).<br /><br />I also agree with your statement completely, "So now I know that Brad does have major culpability."<br /><br />Hope that makes sense? (and remember, go the the source!)SPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12726295210572942506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-79143221838714341632010-12-04T12:03:48.921-08:002010-12-04T12:03:48.921-08:00Thanks Dorothy. So know I know that Brad does hav...Thanks Dorothy. So know I know that Brad does have major culpability. But so do thedistrict employees that (a) decided to use Brad's stat inappropriately in the StratPlan, and (b)used Brad's statistic to influence the Board and other public officials.<br /><br />If I were Brad and certain other folks, I would be worried about criminal charges.<br /><br />I doubt this Board will take appropriate action.<br /><br />I hope that lack of appropriate action comes back to bite the incumbents that might seek re-election next year.Joan NEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810050976533673804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-31743826742505736362010-12-04T11:07:29.566-08:002010-12-04T11:07:29.566-08:00"Brad applied to class of 2007 HECB standards..."Brad applied to class of 2007 HECB standards that wouldn't apply for any graduating class prior to 2012."<br /><br />But Joan, there are two issues, one is the applying future standards but the other is even more mindboggling. Read the 2012 standards and Brad's metric is NOT the 2012 standards. His metric is beyond the standard in both number of math and science credits AND in the GPA.Dorothy Nevillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17108759281089768738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-7349037638424937202010-12-04T11:04:17.931-08:002010-12-04T11:04:17.931-08:00Sea-Parent,
Thank you for explaining what this ph...Sea-Parent,<br /><br />Thank you for explaining what this phrase meant: "HECB requirements are forward looking (to 2012)"<br /><br />I didn't understand the significance until now.<br /><br />Brad applied to class of 2007 HECB standards that wouldn't apply for any graduating class prior to 2012.<br /><br />So now it is clear to me that Brad chose standards that were inappropriately high, that would bias the result downward. This decision of Brad's was wrong, regardless of the independent problem that somebody as yet unidentified decided to mislabel Brad's statistic in the Strat Plan.<br /><br />I wonder how much of a difference this conscious choice made to the results - what if Brad had done exactly the same analysis except that he used instead the contemporaneous HECB standards. I suspect his choice to use the inappropriate standards contributed very strongly to the 30-point discrepancy between the two results (17 vs 47).Joan NEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810050976533673804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-24716898596262505462010-12-04T09:58:20.751-08:002010-12-04T09:58:20.751-08:00Joan,
One important point you missed about the App...Joan,<br />One important point you missed about the Appendix details on the 17%:<br /><br />It clearly states "Credit requirements" for a 4 yr. college in the Appendix (and in another PowerPoint presented to the Board it even more specifically states on the Goals Table, "Graduates meeting 4-year COLLEGE ENTRANCE reqs." <br /><br />So, very clearly the District was representing the 17% as those graduates meeting existing Credit and Entrance requirements for college, pure & simple, no matter how else they now try to spin it (and Brad should be responsible directly for that).<br /><br />BUT- here's the problem- <br />In the Appendix, not only does the District use their own higher "B" average requirement, rather than the HECB's "C" requirement, the Appendix's number of credits required by the HECB are wrong---The HECB at that time (and still now) requires only 3 credits in math and 2 in science, but the Appendix states incorrectly 4 math & 3 science. The district used this mistake (along with the higher B ave.) to incorrectly arrive at the 17%.<br /> <br />At some point, when Brad & the District admit and recognized the 17% was off, someone must have found these errors (intentional or not), but instead of fessing up, they came up with the completely bogus self-proclamed we originally used a "very aggressive standard" of those HS graduates ready "to be admitted and succeed in college." <br /><br />Those statements are a complete cover-up and smoke job and should not be excused.SPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12726295210572942506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-19611712000736169642010-12-04T07:02:01.532-08:002010-12-04T07:02:01.532-08:00While it is true that the Board can accept the CAO...While it is true that the Board can accept the CAO's claim that the CSIPs are complete and compliant, for them to do so without making any effort to confirm the fact constitutes an arbitrary and capricious decision - particularly after they have been informed that the CSIPs are not complete.<br /><br />The Board has no specific duty to review the CSIPs, but they have a standing duty to corroborate and confirm statements - particularly those they attest to be true.Charlie Mashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17173903762962067277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-83778927889610392122010-12-03T22:00:10.441-08:002010-12-03T22:00:10.441-08:00@JoanNE: "Turns out that any person who asks ...@JoanNE: "Turns out that any person who asks can get incredible amounts of information from the district. By law, the district has to provide public information to any person who requests it, 'without prejudice.'"<br /><br />Not trying to be rude (Really!), but this info is well-known on this blog.<br /><br />"If the information requested is public, and the "local agency" fails to provide it, then the agency is breaking the public disclosure law. I don't know if such act is criminal or has a penalty."<br /><br />It is NOT a criminal violation. See RCW Chapter 9A for criminal statutes. According to the Attorney General's website at http://www.atg.wa.gov/OpenGovernment/InternetManual/Chapter1.aspx , you can file suit to force disclosure if your request is denied (See RCW 42.56.550). See that same law for penalties if you prevail against a public agency for disclosure. You might also want to Google a man by the name of Armen Yousoufian.<br /><br />At the district you make public records requests through Joy Stevens in the district's legal department.<br /><br />RCW 9A.76.175<br />Making a false or misleading statement to a public servant. "A person who knowingly makes a false or misleading material statement to a public servant is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. 'Material statement' means a written or oral statement reasonably likely to be relied upon by a public servant in the discharge of his or her official powers or duties."<br /><br />Have fun!The Real Arnoldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-4367634194941542932010-12-03T21:16:30.882-08:002010-12-03T21:16:30.882-08:00The governing WAC for CSIPS says that the local sc...The governing WAC for CSIPS says that the local school board must annual approve CSIPs in the manner required by district policy. <br /><br />It appears to me that the Board approved CSIP review process does not require the Board to inspect and review the CSIPS, but only to accept the CAO's certification that each school has a CSIP which meets the WAC 180-16-220. <br /><br />SO, as far as I can tell, the Board did not breaking any laws by approving CSIPS sight unseen.<br /><br /><br />After reviewing the pertinent state regulation (WAC 180-16-220) and the underlying law (RCW), it seems to me that, statutorily, the CSIP is nothing more than window dressing.Joan NEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810050976533673804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-22437155027153026462010-12-03T20:58:14.713-08:002010-12-03T20:58:14.713-08:00Just for fun, this is how I imagine it:
Brad: Wel...Just for fun, this is how I imagine it:<br /><br />Brad: Well, it turns out 46% of SPS graduates go to college?<br /><br />Powers-that-be: Hmmm, are you sure that's 4 year colleges?<br /><br />Brad: Yes.<br /><br />Powers-that-be: Oh, but they can't all be successful there! Can you figure that out?<br /><br />Brad: Sure. Is there an algorithm?<br /><br />Powers-that-be: I'm sure you can find one somewhere, look in Broad districts, like Colorado. And if you have to tweak it a little, that's OK.<br /><br />Brad: Will do!<br /><br />Someone else can imagine the conversation an innocent Brad might have had when the strategic plan featuring his number came out.Chris S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17016898261120819596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-86003270809574871782010-12-03T19:05:44.003-08:002010-12-03T19:05:44.003-08:00Actually, even if the LATTER, we still ahve the si...Actually, even if the LATTER, we still ahve the situation that Brad correctly described his methodology, and nearly any adult human being is smart enough to see the discrepancy between the label and the methodology. <br /><br />So I suspect that there is a pretty good chance that a court would find that all of these people broke the law: The people who created this table for inclusion in the strat plan; the people who approved the strat plan, and the district employees who used this figure to try to materially influence board votes.Joan NEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810050976533673804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-56265174468355898902010-12-03T18:57:22.348-08:002010-12-03T18:57:22.348-08:00Correction to preceding post.
I suspect the FORM...Correction to preceding post. <br /><br />I suspect the FORMER. If the FORMER, then it seems to me that the misuse of Brad's statistic is not entirely Brad's fault.Joan NEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810050976533673804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-4888567117012255742010-12-03T18:52:10.864-08:002010-12-03T18:52:10.864-08:00Chris,
Sorry if I am not just going over old gro...Chris, <br /><br />Sorry if I am not just going over old ground here....<br /><br />The table on page 14 of the Strategic Plan represented Brad's statistic this way: "Graduates meeting high school credit<br />requirement for four-year college (%)" Result for 2006-07: 17.<br /><br />A footnote to the table says this: "Detailed notes and explanations for these data are included in the Appendices."<br /><br />From the appendix (page 6 of the pdf):<br /><br />"Academic Achievement Metric..Graduates meeting high<br />school credit requirement for<br />4 year college (%)"<br /><br />"Methodology for Calculating the Metric...Students that graduate with a Core GPA of at least 3.0 and meeting the minimum college admissions standards for 2012 as defined by the Washington Higher Education Coordination Board. Includes 4 credits of English, 4 credits of Math (includes senior yearmath requirement), 3 Credits of Science (including 2 credits of laboratory science), 2 Credits of World Languages, 3 Credits of Social Science, and 1 Credit of Arts. Results are for the graduating class of the school year of this report."<br /><br />"Other Comments...HECB requirements are forward looking (to 2012) and are greater than current SPS graduation requirements of 3 Credits of English, 2 Credits of Math, 2 Credits of Science, 3 Credits of Social Studies, and 1 Credit of Fine Arts."<br /><br />Linda Shaw reported this:<br /><br />"Brad Bernatek...said [the 17 percent figure] was supposed to be a measure of how many high-school graduates were prepared to succeed in four-year colleges, not just get admitted."<br /><br />The Nov 9 2010 State of the District presentation says this:<br />"Graduates prepared for a 4-year college..2006-07 47%."<br /><br />I have requested the methodology for the revised statistic.<br /><br />Was Brad asked to predict college success rate of 2006-7 graduates or was he asked to calculate "Percent of Graduates meeting high school credit requirement for 4 year college"<br /><br /><br />I suspect the latter. If the latter, then it seems to me that the misuse of Brad's statistic is not entirely Brad's fault.<br /><br />I'd like to see the blame fall where it rightfully belongs.Joan NEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810050976533673804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-4855904327411696242010-12-03T17:22:14.650-08:002010-12-03T17:22:14.650-08:00@Chris, Yup we agree. Thanks for the clarification...@Chris, Yup we agree. Thanks for the clarification.another momhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12303476240929715442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-32493674859290873582010-12-03T17:13:14.172-08:002010-12-03T17:13:14.172-08:00"THere is a state law that says it is a crime..."THere is a state law that says it is a crime to give false testimony to a public official, when that testimony materially affects the decisions or behavior of the public official"<br /><br />This 17% figure was given to a public official to obtain additional state funding. Additionally, this figure was used by R. Carlyle to help pass House Bill 2261.<br /><br />I am not an attorney, but it sure feels CRIMINAL to me. There needs to be MORE than a slap on the wrist.The First Arnoldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-78929174540733184412010-12-03T17:09:05.448-08:002010-12-03T17:09:05.448-08:00Chris,
I love the term..... faux/Delphi
The distr...Chris,<br /><br />I love the term..... faux/Delphi<br />The district needs a press release form for it:<br /><br />The next SPS faux/Delphi public engagement will be on _______ at _______ at ______pmdan dempseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15536720661510933983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-15744069122568031292010-12-03T17:08:46.657-08:002010-12-03T17:08:46.657-08:00Chris, this was a lot of dead silence. I think it...Chris, this was a lot of dead silence. I think it could have been because of me (and me taking notes) but I think they may have been in a little bit of shock that all three Board members had something to say.<br /><br />Staff typically doesn't respond publicly to criticism but this was a lot of quiet. <br /><br />Sadly, I was taking notes so I didn't watch their faces but then again, Dr. G-J has a very good poker face.Melissa Westbrookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12588239576000641336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-34598373275005267012010-12-03T16:42:18.763-08:002010-12-03T16:42:18.763-08:00One more thing, I will thank Michael DeBell for po...One more thing, I will thank Michael DeBell for pointing out the elephant in the room - one bad number from a district that lives and dies by numbers is a HUGE red flag.<br /><br />I was at the first school reports meeting, Monday after the week of 17%-gate and I <b>could not believe</b> !!! how polite we were. I had to physically restrain myself and did indeed mutter in my small group "like we should trust any number from these people."<br /><br />OK, I lied, one more thing. About community engagement, MSJ being busy: Susan Enfield is out there SO much at these meetings. I just bashed her a bit on the other thread, but it is striking that she is working VERY hard. At that particular meeting, I think Melissa noted, she seemed unusually honest about their limitations, too. The exec. directors are out there a lot more than MGJ too. So the question is, how much community engagement can you delegate? Of course, that assumes any of it counts when it is so faux/delphi...Chris S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17016898261120819596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-37145791887840116282010-12-03T16:34:46.920-08:002010-12-03T16:34:46.920-08:00Melissa, this is great. I am so curious - are the...Melissa, this is great. I am so curious - are the silences typical? If not were they due to your presence or did this session contain more pointed criticism than previous ones? I don't think we'll ever know unless we can get you stranded on a desert island with Michael DeBell...<br /><br />I do think it would be SO great if we could get a little more organized - with a roster of people with different schedules, we could have a John Q Public at every open committee meeting. Might not change things, but we'd know a heck of a lot more.<br /><br />I'm not volunteering, but I can commit to attending C & I meetings until further notice.Chris S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17016898261120819596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-61990385924184758792010-12-03T16:29:55.558-08:002010-12-03T16:29:55.558-08:00another mom
Bernatek's reputation took a rathe...another mom<br /><i>Bernatek's reputation took a rather big hit.</i><br />It is, nationally. That's more or less what I meant, by taking the fall. He is clearly taking the lion's share of the blame, willingly and don't you think DeBell means he doesn't really deserve it?<br /><i> I take it to mean that the onus is on whoever asked him to complete the task.</i><br />I think we agree that this is DeBell's typically subtle way of saying that???Chris S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17016898261120819596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-25349065988572770942010-12-03T16:29:26.339-08:002010-12-03T16:29:26.339-08:00THere is a state law that says it is a crime to gi...THere is a state law that says it is a crime to give false testimony to a public official, when that testimony materially affects the decisions or behavior of the public official. This law also says that a statement is "false" if the speaker does not know the statement to be true. <br /><br />Turns out that any person who asks can get incredible amounts of information from the district. By law, the district has to provide public information to any person who requests it, "without prejudice."<br /><br />This means that members of the public can calculate student college readiness rates themselves, without having to rely on a district employee to do this. Members of the public can create a defintion of college readiness that makes sense to them, and then calculate the value from data requested from, and provided by, SPS.<br /><br /><br />How do you make a public information request? Very easy.<br /><br />Ask and, unless it is not public information, you will receive.<br /><br />If the information requested is public, and the "local agency" fails to provide it, then the agency is breaking the public disclosure law. I don't know if such act is criminal or has a penalty.Joan NEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02810050976533673804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-58346258877859809722010-12-03T15:57:45.663-08:002010-12-03T15:57:45.663-08:00"My interpretation of this is that DeBell is ..."My interpretation of this is that DeBell is saying BB is taking the fall for his boss."<br /><br />Chris I am not so sure about this. <br />Looks to me as if DeBell was saying Brad was instructed to do this and he did so. DeBell may have been trying to explain it away just a bit. Bernatek's reputation took a rather big hit. I take it to mean that the onus is on whoever asked him to complete the task. I don't like to read to much into what was said here because at this point it is the follow-up that becomes the make or break for the current administraiton. Melissa was there listening and taking notes. I am sure that did not go unnoticed.another momhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12303476240929715442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28765366.post-69581724943111237682010-12-03T15:28:39.506-08:002010-12-03T15:28:39.506-08:00I think it good that I was there. Otherwise there...I think it good that I was there. Otherwise there would be bland minutes and no one to hold the Board accountable. <br /><br />They have now asked staff if there is anything else that could embarrass the district (after staff has already done that and in a way that embarrasses other elected officials). If staff does this again, then heads should roll. We will all know that the Board (at least on this committee) told them not to do this again and if it happens, then we need real accountability.Melissa Westbrookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12588239576000641336noreply@blogger.com