A final post

I have decided to end this blog.

Initially it was my intent to offer a different perspective at this site, and to provide a forum for alternative points of view around educational issues in the Lebanon Community School District. I'd had hopes the LT crowd might be open to considering possibilities beyond the legalistic debate-team type analysis and conclusions drawn on that site, and on the RW site to a lesser extent. I felt it was time online readers knew that not everyone agrees with their spin on issues.

I have seriously considered letting go of this blog several times since starting it impulsively some months ago, due to time commitments in the multiple rewarding domains of my life, but it seemed important to have a different point of view regarding district issues represented in cyberworld. And some of you urged me to continue to voice my views here.

Most recently I considered ending the blog after reading the text of Kim Fandinos' farewell statement to the school board as she resigned from her role as president of the Lebanon teacher's union. Ms. Fandino noted the negative role blogs played in her work as union president. I gave that serious thought...wondering if my own energy here contributed to even more discussion and rhetoric for rhetoric's sake: Discourse with no positive result leaving waters even more choppy than before. Was that something I wanted to be part of?

Since few positives have come from hosting this blog site, and it seems to me to just feed the conflict, I will let it go. When I put energy into something and see few positive outcomes, it is time to re-direct that energy into something different. There are many positive possibilities in my life: I will leave the snake pit of local schools controversy and focus elsewhere.

To those of you who have urged me to blog more often and stated you appreciated my perspectives, thanks. But for me it's now time for other things.

Little hope for "reconciliation"

At this point, after a back and forth with LT and others over on that blog, I am wondering if there is any hope for "reconciliation" among factions in this district.

I certainly do not feel that MY views have been sincerely even heard, let alone considered, by that faction. It feels to me like they take a "my way or the highway" approach, but of course, that is looking at it from my perspective.

One MORE time -- if Robinson really has changed...great. But it will take significant time for many of us to believe it. We will have to see repeated examples of a compassionate and respectful administrator. I don't think we have that time.

One MORE time -- I don't agree with everything Rick does (however, I would trust Rick to manage my children's education more than I would LT because I think we need more than legal-type analysis to guide decisions).

One MORE time -- There are many problems in this district that DO pre-date Robinson, but he has rubbed so many people the wrong way so strongly, that he needs to move on before there is any hope of people in this district coming together.

Given that there is this vocal anti-Rick and pro-Robinson faction in the community, we are more divided than ever.

You know, if I showed up regularly at board meetings, LT and I would still disagree: We see things through a different mental filter. LT and supporters would just come up with another reason not to be open-minded.

After the buyout

If we are going to buy Robinson out, I hope it's more a severance package that is significantly less costly than three years of his salary plus benefits. I would prefer Robinson just resign, knowing it is time to give someone else a chance to lead educational efforts in this community. But a buy-out may be our only option.

When we have a new superintendent who brings in fresh air from outside the Lebanon system, we can slowly begin the process of healing and coming together. I am hopeful a new superintendent would facilitate multiple public forums in multiple locations around the district, to gather community ideas and opinions about how to better communicate with parents and unite us behind the goal of better educating our youth. This person would host similar gathering for district teachers. This would be a start.

There is much history of intense, bitter disagreement about what is best for Lebanon's schools, and of disrespect between the factions. I am hoping for someone with the skills and patience to allow us all to grieve our losses with respect and compassion, and fall into line behind a common goal of improving education for Lebanon.

This is no easy or quick task. It will take a talented superintendent at the helm with a track record of success elsewhere, and a lot of patience.

Just for fun -- from the Moody list of questions stolen from the RW site

Your coma: Unplug, or keep on pluggin’? : Unplug if three medical experts think I won't come out of it at least half mentally-home. Otherwise, wait and see..

Superstition you can’t shake: Knock on wood.

Last person you yelled at: My youngest kid.

Duty at work you hate: Anything involving paper.

Invention the world would be better off without: Bombs

Actor/actress you’d trade your partner for: None. We've been together a long time. I mean who really wants to LIVE with a movie star?

Selling price for your kids: Depends on the day, but generally, they aren't for sale.

One thing your mom would faint if she knew about: Too many to list.

Sound of the little voice in your head: Sometimes nagging, sometime cheerleading, sometimes critical, sometimes satisfied.

What you do when the Jehovah’s Witnesses knock: Aggressively ask if they can read the 'No Trespassing' signs, and shut the door!

Web sites you visit instead of working: Yahoo! news, email group lists, LT and RW, sometime the DH

Tylenol or Ibuprofen? : Ibuprofen

Oldest thing in your fridge: I can only name one?

First thing you’d do if made dictator for life: Dictator of the world? the country? ummm. Ban waring weapons would be first, but I gotta long list of things I'd do.

Burial or cremation?: Burial without embalming or concrete, so I can fertilize a tree.

Worst vacation ever: The one where the vehicle repeatedly died -- stranding us in barren, hot, distant places where people weren't friendly or helpful.

Speed you’d drive if you knew you wouldn’t be ticketed: It all depends on mood and situation, but not over 80. Sometimes 40.

Best hangover cure: Time passing.

Sex on the first date? : Absolutely not.

Thing you say that makes you sound like your folks when you swore you never would: To my kids: "Because I said so!"

A spinoff on the question of students addressing teachers by first names

If teachers and administrators introduced themselves to parents using their first and last name (vs. Mr. Jones or Mrs. Smith or Ms. Green) would parents feel they were seen more as equal adult partners in the business of educating their children?

This thought was sparked by a recent discussion on the other educational blogs, around teachers allowing students to call them by first names, or by their last name alone..like "Head," as last year's band teacher, Josh Head, was often called by his students.

There are pros and cons to the issue around students using first names to address teachers, but I generally figure it's up to the individual teacher. I will add that teachers I see my children respecting are teachers who are confident, competent, and caring: There does not seem to be a correlation between what the teacher is called and the level or type of respect my students report for the teacher.

But when I think about my own interactions with teachers and administrators, there is a correlation between those I have found easiest and most satisfying to work with as a parent, and those who suggest I call them by their first name.

Now we know that correlation does not equal causation, so it may be there are other factors that account for my feeling heard and respected by these folks. But it's one small change for some teachers/administrators that might lead to positive interactions with some of us parents. At least it might be worth a try.

Don't micromanage, but do manage

On the RW blog there is a simple, elegant anonymous comment by a reader that just hits the mark:

"If Mr. Robinson is completely opposed to working with the board, that is impractical and he may need to go. Yes, the board should not micromanage, but they are expected to manage. I have a good boss, who lets me work, but when he disagrees with me, he wins."

That is so well-stated that I wanted to feature it here.

A good firework but ends with fizzle

Hasso had another editorial in last night's DH about the latest LCSD board-member recall effort. It notes a real problem with the recall, but fizzles in conclusion. Here's the editorial:

Recall maneuvers

The maneuvering about the on- and off- and on-again recalls against various members of the Lebanon School Board sound a little too calculating and manipulative.

First the recall petitioners gave public notice of wanting to recall board member Debi Shimmin because her term had longer to run than two other members that the recall backers also want off the board. Then Sherrie Sprenger, the board chair, announced she would step down July 1 in order to pursue her election campaign for the legislature. That would give the recall targets a chance to appoint an ally of theirs in her place, giving them three or even four votes on the five-member board. So then the recallers filed against their main targets, Rick Alexander and Josh Wineteer as well as Shimmin. A few days later, they announced they had met with Shimmin and would no longer proceed with the petition against her. The five complaints against her in the recall petition were suddenly no longer all that grievous.

All that makes you wonder whether the long-suffering Lebanon school system would not be better off without the added acrimony of a recall campaign. (hh)

Here's another version:
Some district residents get mad because they worked for Shimmin's election thinking she was a Sprenger clone (a.k.a. Will Do Robinson's Bidding). But it turns out she thinks for herself.

So they tantrum, label her a rule-breaker and decide with righteous indignation to recall her because she's been a very bad girl (doesn't behave as they want). Then they discover some people really blame Rick and Josh (the two bad boys) for recent board actions, and want them recalled more than Debi -- so they decide to go for all three. And then they find many people feel Debi's doing a good job (or "good enough" job) and won't sign her recall petition, but would sign to recall Rick and Josh: Maybe some of them think the bad boys corrupted this good girl.

So then someone in the group decided they would see if they can talk some sense into Debi -- to get her to mend her ways. (Never mind that one would think they might have talked with her before filing a recall petition.) So the head of this self-appointed elders' council meets with Shimmin, who either convinces them she really is a good girl, or that she's seen the error of her ways and won't displease them again, or that she really has good reasons for voting as she does.

We don't know what she told them that prompted them to drop her from their recall: The elders either decide they made a huge mistake by calling for Debi's head, or they feel she is now intimidated and won't disappoint them again, or have some other reason they decide to drop the recall. No one is talking about the content of the conversation between the elders and Debi, so we are left to speculate.

I give Debi the benefit of the doubt here, but something smells of rotten fish. Hasso is right when he says this recall seems "a little too calculating and manipulative." And yes, Lebanon really does not need the extra lemon in the soup this ever-changing recall process adds. But beyond that, we need to take a look at CARES. It seems to be a special-interest group of self-appointed local power people who want to maintain the current administration and it's focus.

If CARES doesn't change it's mind again and call off the recall effort completely, I guess we will see if they are able to gather enough signatures to force a vote on recalling Josh and Rick. And if there is an election, we will see if the majority of those who vote favor ousting these two board members who have had the courage to challenge Robinson's Regime and be mavericks for positive change.

But CARES could do us all a favor by recalling itself as the self-annointed judge of what's good for education in Lebanon.

Thank you Moody and Hasso!

Today's D-H has a balanced and well-written feature story by Jennifer Moody about Kim Fandino leaving her position as local president of OEA, as well as a thoughtful and well-written Hasso Hering editorial about the current attempt to recall the three board members who dare to disagree with Superintendent Robinson.

Thank you both: Reading each provided a welcome, refreshing breath of fresh air.

Won't print hate

Just want to say that I won't be printing any hateful or even negative responses to Kim Fandino's comments just published on this blog. Her comments are meant to stand as written. She does not deserve any more hate and negativity coming her way. So if you read her comments and are planning to fire off a negative comment to be posted on this blog, save yourself time and energy by not bothering, as such comments will not be posted here.

Ms. Fandino...I salute you!

Kim Fandino resigned as president of the LCSD teacher's union last night. I can't blame her. What follows is a copy of her resignation remarks read at last night's school board meeting. Her remarks are so well-stated and thoughtful that I wanted to print them as she wrote them: Enough said.

"Members of the Board, district administration, faculty, staff, and members of the community,

It is with mixed emotions that I come before you with my final statement as the official spokesperson for the Lebanon Education Association. There were apparently questions as to the reality of my resignation because I
said that I was stepping down before.. . I want to set the record straight. I have twice in the past wanted to
step down... the first when I was expecting my son (who is now six) and the second during the last election
cycle a year ago. Because of the contentious and volatile relationship with the superintendent, few people are
willing to put themselves in the line of fire that goes with Association leadership in this district. The first time I
tried to step down, no one was willing to run and so I agreed to continue on. The second time, we had a
candidate who was ready and excited about the prospect, but unfortunately, between nominations and the
election he was forced to resign from the district and move home to be with his family after multiple deaths and
illnesses in his family. What makes this time different, is that the resolution of the ULP and the lack of major
grievances or bargaining makes right now a fairly safe time for others to get their feet wet and learn the ropes.
Leadership must change from time to time in order for organizations to continue to grow and improve upon
themselves. I am proud of my colleagues and it has been an honor serving them.

As the representative of your certified employees, I have spoken for the Association on many issues before this
board. However, I have never put all of our concerns into one statement. It actually would be impossible to do
so because the number of issues and nature of concerns that have come across my desk, email, voicemail etc.
would be impossible to quantify If I were to be paid at the going rate for counseling services, legal advice,
financial advising etc., that I have had opportunity to provide to my members, I probably could have retired by
now.

During my tenure, there has been significant change and upheaval. The district has transitioned from a fairly
stable and reasonable place of employment into a chaotic quagmire of distrust and intimidation tactics.

I have been in a position that has dealt with district-level leadership issues for longer than anyone else here. I
bargained with Superintendent Hazen over a decade ago, and although a few building administrators have been
in the district longer than I, they have not been on the front lines of issues district-wide as I have. I have been
placed in a position of having to know the law and contract inside-out because this district administration has
consistently played fast and loose with rules, regulations and policies. Asbestos exposure of students and staff,
illegal bargaining practices, forcing teachers to work more hours than allowed by the contract, discrimination
and harassment, failure to report complaints of sexual harassment, violations of student rights and Special Ed
laws, failure to reimburse faculty in a fair and equitable manner and involuntary transfers based on personality
issues and poor leadership rather than teacher performance are just a few of the issues I have witnessed.

Reedsport teachers and administration explain that they are still, and I quote, "repairing the damage done by Jim
Robinson," more than a decade after he was non-renewed. When we took the vote of No Confidence in2004,
new teachers voted in support of the motion because their welcome speech by Mr Robinson included the
statement that if you were not comfortable with chaos, this is not the district for you.

Mr. Robinson has made statements over the years that have clearly demonstrated his agenda. He views
bargaining as a battle to be won. He views grievances as acts of war. He views teachers as enemies who are not
to be trusted if they disagree with him or advocate for students in opposition to his philosophy.

We have programs and ideologies in play that directly counteract each other.... For example, the Communities
that Care group used to do surveys about the numbers of indicators students had for being at risk. We had a
whole training about what children needed. At the top of the list were a few things relative to relationships A
strong tie to peers was very close to the top. And yet, our student achievement system, yanks students away
from peers based on test scores and our academies direct students away from their support group and they latch
on to the first person they come to, which may or may not be a good thing. Considering the deeply entrenched
cliques that the academies have become, I do not view it as good. I used to think that social promotion wasn't a
good thing until now. The loss of the peer group is weighing on our students.

During the recent budget discussions, the elephant in the room has not been discussed. We are losing students,
yet our community is growing, why is that? As a parent, I have removed my elementary daughter from Lebanon
Schools because I wanted her to be a third grader who will grow with a core group of students from now until
graduation. She is a TAG student, but I have made it clear as a parent that as long as she is loving school and
feels connected, I have no need to place her in a different program just because she is eligible. The social aspect
is much more important. Also, in her new school she has PE twice a week, Music twice a week, art, and drama.
I believe she is being treated as whole child. We are not providing that sort of education in Lebanon.
I have always been a sort of "bloom where you are planted" kind of person that develops deep loyalty to people,
places and circumstances. However, I also believe in fairness and equity and unlike some of my peers, I am not
willing to sit by and watch damage be done without speaking up. When I was little and my father would say,
"Kim, life isn't always fair." My response always was and continues to be, "but it should be."

Life in Lebanon isn't fair for teachers and students. It is not fair for the parents or the community. Programs
have been slashed or eliminated, advanced programming has been decimated and eliminated. Philosophical
perspectives have turned enabling students into a fine art. There are no clear standards for behavior nor
academics. Teachers and staff have for the most part stopped enforcing rules because there is no back-up from
the next level. Brand-new teachers are thrown into the deep end without life preservers and while we spend
hours figuring out what to do about advisory they are struggling to figure out how to get their content across to
the kids in the classes they need to graduate.

Don't get me wrong, there are some very good administrators in some of these buildings who support their
teachers and students and have clear expectations. However, there are some buildings at every level that push
down every teacher concern and mark down teachers who express concerns for not being "team players" or they
are transferred to another building Again, why would anyone speak up if they knew that would be the result?
At that point you are looking at job security

For whatever reason, many of you have been convinced of the lack of importance of the two unions in the
district. Ms. Sprenger has made it clear that my comments are of no difference in weight than those of a general
audience member. However, by legal standing and by election, I have the weight of over 200 employees behind
me. My comments, whether you believe me or not, have always been tempered by the expectations and
requirements of my executive board who represent each and every building. The very small minority of teachers
and other certified staff who have come and spoken before the board in opposition to my statements at times
have that right, but make no mistake, they are a tiny minority of the licensed staff. Also, they have tended to be
people who have benefited from current administration and/or administrative direction who know that they are
on the "side" that won't get blogged or punished in some other format.

Bad things happen when good people do nothing.. . Bad things are happening and good people are doing
nothing. Why is that? It is because of the actions of those who have bought into a philosophy without any real
investigation or discussion as to the logic and efficacy of that philosophy. It is interesting to note that when Mr.
Wineteer and Mr. Alexander were dissenting votes, they were viewed as the minority. When Ms. Shimmin
joined them at times in their actions and Ms. Sprenger and Mr. Fisher found themselves in the minority, the
majority was labeled as illegal, immoral and unethical, they were blogged, insulted, slandered and libeled and it
was all sanctioned by the minority and a few of their supporters.

Why would any logical person who wants to keep their job and wants to have a peaceful life put themselves in a
position of having themselves attacked, reprimanded, blogged or having a letter put in their file? No one wants
to be treated like Kim Fandino, Bo Yates, Ed Sansom, or Debbie Shimmin. The attackers (anonymous and
known) violate Board policy and even law in their attempts to discredit and hurt anyone who disagrees with
them.

Those of you who are at this very moment plotting your next blog or letter to the editor in response to my
comments have in the vast majority of cases never come and spoken to me or any of the people on "my side" of
the issue about our positions or perspectives. You have been and continue to be one-sided, close-minded, single
note opponents to the very people who you need to implement any programs or activities you may want in the
future.

What needs to change?

This district needs a positive leader who is trusted by all sides.
We need building administrators who have experience with effective strategies, not just philosophical
ideologies that mesh with Mr. Robinson's.
We need faculty and staff that feel respected and trusted in their positions.
We need time and facilitation to align the curriculum vertically and horizontally.
We need a blog-free, intimidation-free, harassment-free work place.

I have one final official request as the president...
We know that the bargaining that is coming up will be difficult due to budget constraints; however, it does not
need to be difficult due to philosophies nor demonstrations of the depths of one's power or position. We are
prepared to bargain in good faith and look at common solutions and ideas to get to a win-win outcome.
Unfortunately, we do not believe that Mr. Robinson's stated philosophy on bargaining has been productive or
appropriate in the past. He has repeatedly refused to allow us to use a truly collaborative model for resolution
and as I stated before, views bargaining as a game to win For us, it is not a game. It is our lives and our
livelihood. We do not believe that good faith bargaining is possible under the current circumstances, unless we
can do it collaboratively and without the input of Mr. Robinson. This is not unprecedented, Mr. Robinson has
removed himself from the bargaining before.

We therefore would ask the board to consider the following.
We bargain in January of 2010.
We would like to utilize the collaborative method of bargaining.
We would like to have two board members involved in the process and at least one board member present for
every session.

We would like to request that Mr. Robinson not be involved in the bargaining on behalf of the district.

While this may all seem like a negative diatribe. I felt compelled by honesty and decency to let you know what
the elephants in the room are, and will continue to be, if things don't change. This community is in danger
because the heart is being destroyed piece by piece. The educated adults in the community are increasingly
sending their students to other schools. The behavior in the schools is escalating and in some cases we have
classes that look like they should be in an inner-city school.

However, even with all that, I love this district, I love these kids. ... If I didn't, I wouldn't even speak up
because I just wouldn't care.

I am not afraid, but many others are...you will not hear from Kim Fandino's mouth on these kinds of issues in
the future, but you will hear from me... in the voice of my president! Make no mistake, my president speaks for
me and for about 90% of the rest of the teachers. Take that person seriously, no matter who is in the position,
they are representing all of us. If you doubt that, please feel free to survey all of your employees in a
confidential, unfiltered manner, and you will get fair representation of perspectives.

I appreciate the opportunity to address you."

Legal opinion needed to go poop?

It seems that the Robinson loyalists scream "illegal" any time the board takes a vote that doesn't go their way...suspending Robinson was "illegal" they say, and Josh's amendments to the PIE contract were "illegal."

Yet one never hears that screech when votes support their opinions.

Let's remember that the only decisions that have to date been found "illegal" by a judicial body were those Robinson pushed -- the contracting out of custodial staff and the discipline of Kim Fandino.

It's also interesting that the head of CARES is an attorney employed by Tom McHill, who was one of three board members included in this town's LAST recall effort not so long ago. Bet he's making big points with his boss for all this CARES work.

It seems that if the board does anything against Robinson's wishes, the cry of "illegal" drifts over this community. If they wanted a potty break during a board meeting, and Robinson objected, bet they'd say we need a legal opinion to decide on that...and that taking a break without one was "illegal" (I'm only half kidding.)

Again...which side has the history of being shown "illegal"? Let's stick to the facts.

Taking the toys and going home...

Since Debi Shimmin was elected to the school board, she's apparently gained additional informational resources or new insights into district operations and problems. Shimmin ran for office as a District Office/ Sprenger favorite daughter, but apparently now that she's been elected, she's working to think for herself. This ticks off some Robinson-supporters and/or Robinson suck-ups who now are throwing a big-time temper tantrum and organizing a recall.

This remind me of the "mob" getting someone elected, and then rubbing out that person because the elected official began to believe they actually should do what's best for the community vs. the special-interest bidding of the "mob."

CARES, the group behind this recall, apparently just cares about getting it's own way. Another sad day for the Lebanon Community School District.

"Lebanon-Express" aims to please...

"...It's not just advertisers. Tick off your sources, and they stop talking. It's exacerbated in a small town, as there are a very limited number of sources," per Dennis Dugan in a comment on this blog.

So we need to realize, when we read the Express, that reporters won't ask tough questions of regular "sources" because that might make them mad, and then they will refuse to talk to the reporters in the future.

This is a cop out: The sources need the paper as much as the paper needs them. I say, "Go ahead! Piss them off!" Then if they refuse to comment for future stories, just write that they refused to comment! They would look petty and manipulative, as some of them no-doubt are!

How would they look if these were actual (they are not) quotes in Express stories"

"Jim Robinson refused to comment when asked about proposed school district budget changes."

"Steve Kelley refused to comment when asked about the high school lockdown last week."

"District Office administrator Ticked-off Tommy refused to comment on reports he was angry after the last board meeting."

"Polly put-off declined to talk to an Express reporter, saying she was mad about last week's story on the school district."

These power-brokers in Lebanon NEED the Express as much as the Express needs them. This may also be true of advertisers, now that I think of it.

So the bottom line here is: Read The Express with 5 grains of salt -- Know that reporters and the editor are most likely careful to print stories that favor the current power brokers. The stories are not likely to be objective, thoughtful accounts of events or issues facing this community.

Some clarifications...

Shimmin's email -- I stand corrected by Dennis as I missed the sentence in Coonrod's story about his obtaining the e-mail through a public records request. And if it's true, as reported by LT, that Sherry forwarded the e-mail to Kelley, when the email concerned a complaint about Kelley from one board to another, then Sherry's action was despicable.

If a colleague or friend sent you an e-mail complaining about a person who is supposed to answer to your authority, would you forward it on to that person without the consent of the sender? This is divisive and something that just does not happen among mature adults. It might happen if an employee complained to their boss about another employee, though even then it wouldn't be great policy. Is that how Sherrie sees herself as board chair? The boss of other board members? This shows a serious lack of judgment by Sherrie, in my opinion.

How many LHS administrators-- I personally support having at least three administrators at the high school. My point was that it was a controversial issue, and DO staff knew that but disrespected the community and board members by not seeking board approval before starting the hiring process.

And yes, the hiring process was not hidden and board members could have initiated an objection. But relationships are so poor between the DO staff and the majority of our school board, that this was unlikely to happen.

Again, nothing will change until the disrespectors (Robinson and Kelley, and there may be others there as well) leave this district.

Board's role-- I agree that the role of a school board is not to micro-manage district operations. When a board can hire a superintendent who listens and does not disrespect board members or the community, the board needs to back away and let this superintendent run the district according to board-approved policies. But at this point, the majority of board members don't appear to trust that the DO staff has the best interest of this community at heart.

Rubber-stamping hiring decisions -- Interesting point, Dennis, that board members ARE supposed to rubber-stamp hiring decisions by the superintendent. I am wondering, if this is the case, why it's legally require that school boards approve hirings? If the role is simply to rubber-stamp, it would seem the board would not be involved in the process at all.

Since it is apparently the role of the board to vote on hiring decisions, it certainly is implied that there is an over-seeing role for the process and candidates selected. If not, why would the board be required to approve all hirings?

Bullying Debi -- I never expected Debi ever to vote against DO positions, so I have been impressed she appears to make up her own mind. I don't see her as among the rubber-stampers when she does agree with a district position, but when she changes her mind radically between board meetings, I do think it's likely she was bullied into changing her mind by the Robinson supporters.

Lebanon-Express -- I think Larry Coonrod does some of the best reporting I've seem in the Express, and often writes a more balanced story than appears in the D-H. Overall, in the many years I've lived here, the Lebanon paper has seemed to be a mouthpiece for power people in the community, whoever they are at the time. In other words: Muckrackers they aren't. But it may need to be that way for their survival...you tick off your advertisers and you might be out of business. So boosterism may be a sad reality for any small local newspaper.

Who should be "embarrassed"?

The newspapers have printed stories, and letters-to-the-editor, quoting community members lamenting how "embarrassing" it was when the school board initially declined to vote on whether to hire high school principals to refill two of three vacancies in academy principal slots at the high school.

Apparently some people took this as a personal slap at these candidates, and at the district and community members who worked to select them.

Here's what I wonder: Did anyone clear refilling these positions with the board before rolling ahead? I never read that the board decided to refill two vs. three of the vacant positions, but I could have missed it. Did the board vote not to return to a one-principal model to oversee the high school? There has been talk in the community about whether it makes sense to have so many administrators at the high school, especially given projected budget shortfalls.

What would be embarrassing is if DO staff bulldozed ahead on hiring without consulting the board, which then balked when asked to refill these positions.

Obviously the DO knew this was a controversial issue, or they would have pushed to refill all three vacancies vs. just two. When there is a controversial issue in a functional school district, top administrators solicit board approval before moving ahead.

I have wondered whether anyone discussed filling these positions with the board prior to rolling ahead and initiating the hiring process. What would be embarrassing, though not unexpected, would be for the superintendent to again assume he knows best and again disrespect board members and hire principals with a request that the board "rubber stamp" the decision to fill two of three positions.

If boards are not supposed to thoughtfully approve hiring administrators, why is it their approval must be given before hirings are final and "legal"? Are they supposed to just "rubber stamp" these decisions?

One small piece of PIE

There is one piece of the Sand Ridge/PIE issue that I haven't seen mentioned: If Jay Jackson and his employees can get and stay on top of their paperwork requirements, the LCSD gets 15% of all money paid to this charter organization to educate district students and has no expenses for educating these students itself beyond minor administrative costs. So this is a potential money-making deal for the district.

Instead of focusing on how Sand Ridge will now receive 85% vs. the prior 80% of funds that funnel this way for educating students, I'm thinking that maybe a 15% rake-off by LCSD is excessive if legal paperwork pieces are completely in a timely manner and submitted as required so the district does not need to devote administrative time to bird-dogging this process.

There certainly seems to be bad blood between district administrators and Sand Ridge/PIE folks, and given Robinson's history of disrespecting others, I doubt his hands are clean. But it does sound like Jay Jackson and his crew need to find a way to get and stay atop state paperwork requirements.

Another small piece of PIE: I am recalling (I know someone will correct me if I'm wrong) Jay Jackson is paid $35,000 annually. So working for not-much-above minimum wage doesn't excuse not doing one's job, but good grief. Does he have a second job to support himself?

What is "Rubber-Stamping"

Rubber-stamping is trusting that someone you respect is correct, and not examining issues yourself when you are elected as a board member to do just that.

Some Robinson lovers thought they were going to get another rubber stamper when they supported Debi in our most recent school board election, and are now upset that she appears to think for herself.

It seems every time Debi, who seems to be a bright and thoughtful woman though I've never spoken with her personally, deviates from the Robinson view (and she agrees with the Robinson crew often), nasty letters to the editor appear in the local paper because she is not the rubber-stamp some thought they elected.

I would bet money (and I never bet money) she gets hateful phone calls and emails from some folks as well. What a badgering she must deal with whenever she examines the evidence and happens to agree with Josh and Rick! My hat is off to her, though I personally voted for Kathy Benzo in that race.

So Debi is NOT a rubber-stamper. And those who wanted her to be one are having a fit.

Disrespect of "legal" advice

(This post started as a response to Dennis' question about my last post, and I'm not sure this answers his question but maybe it does.)

Since the majority of the board members distrust Robinson, it follows they will distrust his legal counsel. It seems the district's legal counsel has history of working with and seemingly-for Robinson, vs. for the elected school board which is responsible for governing our district. In addition, the "district" legal counsel's positions are proven wrong time and again in legal arenas. So, they seem to see their client as Robinson and not those governing the district, and they apparently give some bad advice -- some "illegal" advice.

With Robinson gone, and a quality legal firm hired that has no ties whatsoever to board members or to the district administration, I believe Rick, Josh and Debi would be more inclined to listen.

Attorneys work to represent their clients and help them attain their goals within the law: The current legal firm appears to be confused about who the client is -- the client is the district's governing body, not Jim Robinson.

Whenever the district, following this firm's advise, is challenged in court, it seems the district position is found "illegal."

Kim Fandino being told she couldn't communicate directly with board members was ruled "illegal" when challenged through the legal system. On the other hand, it might be the legal firm was not consulted on this matter, and Robinson did this "illegal" action on his own.

But surely they were consulted before the contracting out of custodians several years ago -- judged to be done "illegally" by the legal system.

We need a new administrative staff, and maybe we do need a clean slate of board members before healing can begin, but let's not forget to hire new legal counsel and please...not someone selected by LT and her/his merry band of "legal" experts.

"2 cents"

"2 cents" had some interesting thoughts on the LT blog: Thank you to the anonymous reader who asks for views here, and to the anonymous who recently asked where I am, and my apologies for disappearing again from the Lebanon educational blog scene due to life demands. Again, I'd encourage any rational folks concerned about the Lebanon Community School District to create blogs dedicated to the topic if they are better at making time for blogs than I seem to be.

I think Rick, Josh and Debi were elected as change agents by a community that was tired of the Robinson Rubber Stamp crew. I see LT now calls them the "Terrible Trio," so I guess I will lower myself to her level for a moment and dub Sherrie and Chris "The New Robinson Rubber Stampers."

It's interesting that the Rubber Stampers are in the minority now, with some of their supporters calling for a recall. Let's see.. Where have we seen this before in the district!?

Now I have "lowering-myself-to-LT's-level" out of my system, I will drop the new nickname: It probably is unfair as surely there have been times Chris and Sherrie voted against Robinson's wishes, though it does seem they are among his loudest cheerleaders. LT's blog is destructive and divisive, so I agree with 2-cents there, and I want to avoid falling into that role myself.

My knee-jerk reaction is that I don't think it makes sense for all board members to resign, as "2 cents" suggests. But maybe I should ponder that option more. It's unlikely to happen, for one, and then who would replace them? Would the people who were INDEED true rubber-stampers, who Rick and Josh replaced on the board, come back to do Robinson's bidding, and maybe even reinstate his contract extension after all?

I think a fresh start with power to heal is more likely to come from a fresh crew in the DO rather than a fresh crew of board members. I think a new superintendent with new administrators behind her/him is more likely to prompt healing and moving forward than new board members Robinson then works to control, which would send us back to the same old merry-go-round.

Hiring principals

It is admirable that public comment was sought in the recent principal-hiring processes around the district. However, many will not participate until and unless Robinson and his crew have moved on and a fresh, trustworthy superintendent is in charge. This is because there are parents who have worked for positive change for this district who believe they could harm the chances of a perfectly capable candidate by participating in the process and noting positive attributes of this or that candidate. In other words, those seen as in the "enemy camp" by Robinson's crew, might well give a candidate the mark of Cain by appearing to support them. Rather than risk doing that, there are parents abstaining from the process.

Some may see this as paranoid, but it is a real fear to some parents, and I can see their point. It is nice that Steve Kelley works to involve parents and the community now. The problem is, it won't work because there is too much water under the bridge, too much distrust, too many attempts to intimidate and silence teachers with opposing viewpoints, and too much condescension to parents with concerns.

Kelley is probably trying to save his own future in Lebanon by taking steps to involve community in ways that might have been successful years ago, before so much negative history was made. (Is it sad or what that LCSD needs a legal ruling to tell Robinson he can't order staff to talk only to their bosses about concerns or questions and not to exercise their constitutional right to free speech by talking with elected school board members?). Good grief, Charlie Brown.

On substitute teachers

Every once in awhile I hear of a substitute who actually does a better job in the classroom than the regular teacher. Here's an example: A high-level math teacher at Lebanon High School recently didn't want/know how/care to explain a concept that many students in the class weren't grasping, yet the teacher elected to just "move on" to stay on a teaching timeline rather than back up and explore different options for explaining said concept. Fortunately the teacher was absent soon thereafter, and the substitute happened to know math and how to teach it. The sub backs up and takes time to explain this apparent hole in our students' prior math learning, until these bright students grasped the concept! Success!

Then there was another recent sub who lacked knowledge of a speciality subject area where the sub was assigned. This sub just let the class hang out and talk the entire period, wasting valuable educational time. If a subject is too specialized for regular subs to follow a lesson plan (do teachers at the high school level do lesson plans?), say maybe band, choir, French, Spanish.... couldn't there be a quality DVD on hand that would enrich the students? A play in French? A concert by a famous choir or symphony orchestra? I'd say a substitute teacher should be able to teach (or at least play a teaching DVD), or we are not only wasting our students' limited educational hours but paying way too much for a sitter.

Out of touch

Apologies to those who have missed this blog. I have over-committed in all domains of my life, so haven't blogged or read the other educational blogs in some time. I would like to be back on track soon, but am not sure this will happen in the near future.

Of course I was very pleased to see the board vote not to renew Jim Robinson's contract, yet it doesn't seem he'll be gone anytime soon. I fear he will hang around and work to support school board candidates at the next election who would initiate another vote to renew his contract if they are elected.

And to the person who asked if I wasn't blogging because of comments by Dennis...Heck no! I disagree with Dennis about most things local yet there is something about him I like: He's passionate about his views and will state them in no uncertain terms, and seems to really want a better educational system for Lebanon's youth even though he's wrong about the best ways to get there!

And as for LT, who last I heard was anonymous and I respect his/her right to remain that way, I just have been too busy to read her/his rants of late, and I suspect they haven't changed much.

What next? Career choices by 4th grade?

I appreciate State Superintendent of Public Instruction Susan Castillo encouraging Lebanon's 7th-8th graders to begin to ponder possible career options, and to know that there will be additional science and math requirements in place by the time they graduate from high school. But it seems there is pressure on students to select a career path before their developing brains can even get around the word "career." I would wager it's a small percentage of you reading these words who had selected a viable career choice by 8th grade.

The academy system at LHS tracks kids by asking them to pick a general career area so they can select the most appropriate academy before their freshman year. Each academy then tailors classes to cover high school basics within the framework of the academy career domains. This system greatly reduces the possibility that a student interested in physical science will enroll in a drama class (in a different academy) that sparks a passion for theatre arts, that might then lead to a college drama major: It reduces the chance a student strong in language arts (social systems academy) will discover a talent for chemistry as applied in a medical field (different academy).

High school resources are best spent offering a wide range of courses that cover basics and offer a taste of possible career futures. How will one know if one likes welding, if there is not a class to try? How will one know if they might have abilities and interests to train as a dentist if as an 8th grader they loved drama so selected a social academy?

Now dentists might indeed come out of a social academy: It can happen. But this tracking of high schoolers reduces the chances that they will find their way to a true passion. Just as tracking in the 60's steered some of us toward college, some towards vocational schools and some towards a terminal high school diploma -- this process limits students knowledge of their choices and interests by prematurely asking them to make life-changing choices.

There was a day when students graduated from high school, then decided on their next step. Then there was tracking by school-determined aptitude levels (college prep, voc prep, or high school is all you can hope for.). Now students are asked to decide in the 8th grade on a general career domain.

Will we keep pushing career-decisions to lower and lower grades? Do we start to teach the kindergardener who wants to be a cowboy to make rope loops?

We need to back off and gives kids space to discover interests and abilities at the high school level, while enthusiastically teaching basic courses with rigor so that as many students as possible are ready for college courses should they decide to pursue them.

"Shame on you"

I noticed, reading some comments on another educational blog, the phrase, "Shame on the rest," when someone disagreed with a commenter and those who agree with them. This is a variation of, "Shame on you!" Fortunately, I don't see this phrase too often. It's a deeply hurtful phrase used today, in my opinion, mostly by those without positive parenting skills while shaking a finger in a child's face.

How is this phrase helpful? Does it not just pour gasoline on the fire?

What about a simple, "I disagree with you," or, "I find that comment off-base" instead?

Thinking outside the country

There's a thought-provoking article in The Atlantic, January-February 2008 edition, (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/miller-education) by Matt Miller. He argues that to create a competitive educational system in this country, we need to do what other countries do that are most successful at educating their populations: Establish national standards and proficiencies, and let go of local and state control of schools entirely, which he blames for the dreadful state of America's schools today. He suggests we abolish local school boards, though acknowledges advocating for this is an uphill battle at best.

He notes that,
"The United States spends more than nearly every other nation on schools, but out of 29 developed countries in a 2003 assessment, we ranked 24th in math and in problem-solving, 18th in science, and 15th in reading. Half of all black and Latino students in the U.S. don’t graduate on time (or ever) from high school. As of 2005, about 70 percent of eighth-graders were not proficient in reading. By the end of eighth grade, what passes for a math curriculum in America is two years behind that of other countries."

This is what local control of school districts has gotten us of late, he argues, and that a national approach-- including much greater funding at the federal (vs. local) level -- will help us become more competitive in the realm of global education.

Before anyone screams that I must be a latent pinko/commie, I confess to having an approach/avoidance reaction to his ideas, as it often seems the more the federal government gets involved in projects, the more bureaucratic and less effective they become. That being said, this man's ideas are interesting. The most productive/effective schools may be in countries where the federal government sets high standards, takes charge of funding education, and has a uniform assessment system for documenting progress. We certainly do need to try something new, since what we are doing isn't working. It's worth a microscopic look at the educational systems and cultures of the highest-achieving countries.

There are likely other variables at play: Cultural, social, family variables likely drive levels of academic expectation and achievement, and teacher performance levels.

In a strange way, Miller argues, there is more freedom -- not less -- in this nationalization he proposes. Here's another quote from the article:

"In all of these efforts, we must understand one paradox: only by transcending local control can we create genuine autonomy for our schools. “If you visit schools in many other parts of the world,” Marc Tucker says(Tucker heads the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce -- a 2006 bipartisan panel that called for an overhaul of the education system), “you’re struck almost immediately … by a sense of autonomy on the part of the school staff and principal that you don’t find in the United States.” Research in 46 countries by Ludger Woessmann of the University of Munich has shown that setting clear external standards while granting real discretion to schools in how to meet them is the most effective way to run a system. We need to give schools one set of national expectations, free educators and parents to collaborate locally in whatever ways work, and get everything else out of the way."

"Nationalizing our schools even a little goes against every cultural tradition we have, save the one that matters most: our capacity to renew ourselves to meet new challenges. Once upon a time a national role in retirement funding was anathema; then suddenly, after the Depression, we had Social Security. Once, a federal role in health care would have been rejected as socialism; now, federal money accounts for half of what we spend on health care. We started down this road on schooling a long time ago. Time now to finish the journey."

Without a school board would our bickering end? Would we need a superintendent, or would principals answer directly to some federal administrator?

I am sure we have much to learn through study of the world's most successful educational systems, and I don't think we should be afraid to consider radical changes, after thorough examination of the details, given that we now seem to be running at the back of the pack. It's only up from here.

OSU fires basketball coach

Now I'm not personally big on sports, but it did interest me to see that OSU just fired its head basketball coach after a several-year losing streak. We can argue this is unfair, that he should have had more chances to improve, that he recently had changed whatever he had done wrong in past years, etc.

This is how things work in the big world: Top people who don't meet goals are replaced.

Did this head coach have a formal evaluation before being let go? (Didn't sound like there was time for one.) I know, he didn't apparently have the same type of employment contract held by Robinson, but that's not the point.

In the real world, when the leader doesn't get the performance out of those she/he leads (for whatever reason), the leader is replaced.

" Josh's wife"

So two readers have decided I am "Josh's wife" because they've heard her state views like mine. Just goes to show that I am not the only person who has my views! This is making me think maybe I should meet Josh's wife, since apparently we have something in common.

The serious thought here is: My views and situations are not unique to me. There are many people out there who (pick one or more) have young children, avoid board meetings because they leave one feeling enraged and/or feeling not heard, think Robinson needs to resign for healing in this district to even have a chance to begin, think all the blogging by LT is more hurtful than helpful, like and respect Rick Alexander for working toward positive change in this district whether or not we agree with him 100%.

Another serious thought: Like I wrote about speculative comments about LT's identity, I'm not going to publish any more speculation about who I am or who I am not, so no need to submit comments like that in the future.

Board behavior and other thoughts

A reader has asked about my views on the behavior of Lebanon Community School District board members. I have not attended a board meeting in some months, so I don't have an opinion about behavior at recent meetings.

Given that when I did attend board meetings, it was common for me to read a report of that meeting in the Democrat-Herald and feel I must have been at a different meeting than the reporter, I hesitate to put too much stock in newspaper meeting reports.

What I can say is I attended several meetings when Tom McHill was chair, and several when Rick was chair. My impression was that McHill was arrogant, that Sprenger and Fisher just tolerated rather than heard opinions from the audience when they didn't agree with the opinion being voiced, and that Rick and Josh actively encouraged and listened to parents and community members of divergent views.

That being said, I do think it's in the best interest of all for cordial communication and respect of others with opposing views, whether they are other board members or constituents.

It is interesting to see letters in The Express and D-H now, supporting Robinson and damning Rick. I keep recalling the photo I saw in one of the papers months ago, of a crowd -- a seemingly large crowd -- of folks holding signs and speaking to the board and encouraging members to terminate Robinson.

It seems that shrieks of "illegal" have drowned the voices of reason: It is common now to hear people state so authoritatively and with certainty that Rick and Josh behave recklessly and illegally as board members. The truth is, if you get 3 attorneys in a room you are likely to get 3 different legal opinions. Didn't the current district legal counsel approve the contracting out of custodial services that was later judged to be illegal, costing the district significant money? (I am sure you all will correct me if I am not recalling that correctly.)

How about the district contracting with some other well-respected law firm well-grounded in school law, and letting go of the current attorney who seems to be buddies with Robinson. The district pays this attorney to represent the district's best interest, not Robinson's best interest. It seems to me the current long-time board attorney wants what's personally best for Robinson vs. for our community.

I know.....when Robinson sued Rick and Josh he did hire a private attorney to handle the lawsuit, vs. using the district's attorney. But fresh, competent legal opinions about board behavior would be most welcome.

District Report Card

All us parents of students in Lebanon schools were mailed a copy of the district report card: To quote both the 2006-7007 LHS School Report Card and the district's overall report card, "Federal Adequate Yearly Progress Rating: NOT MET." For the high school, there is an "Oregon Report Card Overall Rating: LOW."

Of special note is the writing assessment: Apparently 39% of 10th graders passed that test, which of course means 61% failed. Even looking only at "comparison schools," those with similar demographics, this year 47% of those students passed, as did 55% or Oregon's 10th graders. Now these are pathetic rates one and all, but how did we do so poorly?

Our other high school scores were pathetic as well: Last year, only 50% of our 10th graders passed the math section, using a new "lower standard" devised this year. Using the "prior standards," according to the report card, only 33% of our 10th graders passed math. Either way, at least half our 10th graders failed the math test!

We can argue that statewide students scored poorly on these tests (though our students scored more poorly). We can argue that the tests are poorly-designed (possibly true -- why not consider a nationally-normed test vs. one we made up in Oregon?). We can argue that this year the computers broke down so tests were given manually which our students aren't used to.

I've seen the comments about how it's only fair to compare Lebanon's poor results with other districts of similar lower socio-economic status. I find those comments insulting and a cop-out by those who want to justify their belief we have effective administrative leadership in this district.

It has been proven time and again that with the right approach and leadership and belief in the community and in the student's abilities, incredible educational gains can be made in schools with lower socio-economic rating than ours. Don't sell our students short.

Now look at the Financial Data section and the dollars per student spent on: direct classroom expenses (below statewide average), classroom support (below statewide average), building support
( below statewide average), central support (above statewide average).

So we are only above or equal to the statewide spending average when it comes to money spent on the district office/administrative support. Where are our priorities?

No more speculation about LT

So far I've posted all comments submitted here, but want to say upfront now that I don't want to post anymore speculation about who LT is or isn't. We all are curious, of course, and many of us have beliefs about her/his identity, but out of respect for the benefits of anonymous blogging (all of you except Dennis are anonymous, right?), I don't want to pursue this.

Also, it distracts us from the work of frank discussions aimed at improving schools for our students and community. I generally disagree with LT, but LT has a right to his/her opinions and to post them for all to consider. It is hard when it seems LT's posts are damaging to this process, yet LT has a right to remain anonymous just like the rest of us.

I also want to note that I won't try to respond to each comment posted here. I appreciate opposing points of view and at times will respond, but probably will respond less often than I did when I started this blog. But please don't be insulted if I don't respond to your comment or question. Other bloggers might have time to do this, but I do not. I started this blog spontaneously after becoming enraged at some of LT's comments. It seemed there needed to be at least one on-line voice with an alternative perspective, which I seek to offer. It would be great if others would start blogs on this topic, as well. Any takers?

Movies in the classroom

Now I know elementary-school classes sometimes earn a "party" as a reward for some collective good deed. Special food treats and a movie are fine, but can we make the movies fun AND educational?

Instead of showing "Shrek," can we show one of Scholastic's "The Magic School Bus" entertaining but educational DVDs? In high school, if a substitute cannot be found with enough knowledge of a specialized subject to actually teach (choir, band, French, Spanish, etc.) can an instructional DVD be shown appropriate for the subject, vs. "Pirates of the Caribbean."? OK, maybe a sociology class can put the latter movie to educational purposes, but it doesn't seem that is usually happening.

I have wondered if there are thoughts that disadvantaged students do not get to see popular commercial movies, so this offers them exposure. But this would not be a convincing argument, if anyone made it. More likely it is a busy teacher just getting by. I want to add that I am sure many teachers do include educational movies in their lesson plans, and of course a theater arts class would have a good reason to view a commercial movie for educational purposes.

We need to take advantage of every educational hour available for our students. Do show movies, but please take a moment to ponder their educational value even if it is the last day of school or the day before a major break. Time is wasting.

Beeson's opinion in the Lebanon Express

Read the opinion piece in this week's Express (January 9, 2008, page A6), an apparent excerpt of Warren Beeson's comments at a school board meeting. I have two comments about this article:

1. The Express showed it's true colors by deciding to make this into an article, and to headline it, "Board behavior is unacceptable," on the Opinion page. I challenge them to run a similar piece headlined, "Superintendent's behavior is unacceptable." Plenty of well-spoken and intelligent community members have made statements about the need for changes in Robinson's behaviors at school board meetings, but none have become a featured article in our weekly newspaper. The Express favors Robinson vs. the voices for change: Small-town politics at work.

2. If you read the statement and substitute the words "the superintendent," or "Jim Robinson" for each reference to the school board, the comments in the article ring true. Try it yourself.