Does This Mean That We're Irritating Somebody?

Dear blog readers,

For all of you who have sent email and written comments over this past few days and have been wondering why they apparently went unanswered and unposted, here's what's been going on: It appears that the blog was the target of a hacking attempt or some other kind of attack designed to prevent us from logging in to view comments and post new entries. It's taken us a few days and some consultation with bloggers more savvy than ourselves to get the problem corrected and to be able to log in again. Unfortunately this caused a delay in our ability to read comments and email. Again, our apologies. The good news is that all is normal again and we've had some great help and instruction in getting there.


Does this mean that we're making somebody mad? Could be.


But as usual, what initially seems to be a setback turns out to be a good surprise. When we put the word out that we needed some help figuring out how to recover from this trouble we had a few excellent offers of help from really talented people who have students in the district, and some of whom run their own blogs. So a big 'thank you' to you all for lending us your expertise. Without you we would probably still be wondering what was going on with Google and Blogger.


That's it - Just wanted the people who have been emailing and commenting with no replies or comment moderation to know what's been the cause of the delay.

June 1st Board Meeting Agenda has been posted

The agenda for Tuesday's board meeting has been posted to the district's web site and is also available via our Scribd site listed at the left side of this page. To view, just click on the document, or visit the district's website. In any case, please take a look at the agenda, particularly the items that follow the recognition of retirees. Very often when there is a large group at a board meeting for something like that (recognition of retirees), people leave during the intermission that follows. But it's during this post-intermission time that the business items show up, like the results of the supt's phone survey about putting a multi-million bond on the ballot, etc. We will post again after we've read over the whole document, but in the meantime we wanted to let you know that it's available for reading. Please take a few minutes and look over it. There are important items coming up at this meeting.

How to Win Friends and Influence People

One way would be to read Dale Carnegie's ancient but still relevant book of the same title. Another way would be to study the way that our new superintendent is dealing with community groups and organizations, and then do the opposite. In the past couple of months he has undertaken a series of actions that have left many of us in head-shaking disbelief, as he has disregarded and undermined some of the most respected and longstanding organizations involved with the district, most notably the YMCA and the EEF.

In the case of the YMCA, here's the quick info:

• The YMCA Playground Partners program is a means for parents to be involved in  while also providing an excellent service to the schools and students.  Playground Partners is "an outdoor curriculum, through collaboration with parents as trained playground coaches, to enrich the playground..." experience.  The program is subsidized by the YMCA itself, and the district contributes funds as well. As those of us with kids in the schools can confirm, this program is excellent and benefits a great number of students at a relatively low cost.
• In addition, the superintendent announced that the district is planning to discontinue the after school care programs that the YMCA runs at three of the district's schools. This is possibly even more stunningly unilateral than the playground program item. The after school programs host scores of students in a professionally developed program. Those of us who have kids in those programs know that they are excellent, and provide an alternative to sending our kids to some random after school daycare away from school.
• The long and short of it is that the superintendent has proposed completely eliminating the YMCA after school care and Playground Partners programs. He had apparently not consulted with the YMCA, the school sites, or the parent community, since there has been quite an uproar in the wake of the board meeting. When the director of the YMCA, Susan Hight, was able to address the superintendent and the board, it was only by way of a public speaker's card filled out at the meeting. As far as we've heard, the YMCA found out about the cut when the meeting agenda was posted the Friday before the meeting. 
• When the YMCA did speak at the meeting it was to request that the cuts be put on hold until the district and YMCA could further discuss options.
• This is a clear example of the the Baird way of doing things: Shoot first, ask questions later.
• Why would the superintendent so snub a community organization that is as respected and established as the YMCA, and over a program that the YMCA subsidizes?
• The answer lies in the fact that the district hopes to expand its own after school programs which Baird & Miyashiro view as a cash cow. Sadly, these programs are nowhere near the caliber of the YMCA programs, in both training and organization. The district's after school programs are staffed by well-meaning and energetic young people who generally look to be of recent-high-school-graduate age. This is fine, except that they're not trained adequately, the turnover is very high, and the programs are really more akin to after school babysitting. While it might be in the interests of the Educational Services Department's bottom line to reap financial rewards from such an expansion, those of us who have children in the programs know that doing away with Playground Partners and expanding the district's after school effort will not do anything to involve parents and will definitely not be a positive move for the kids.

In the case of EEF, here are some recent developments:

• The superintendent has stated that he would prefer to disband the EEF and devolve its various activities  to the PTA at each school site.
• He has enlisted and co-opted the help of the present EEF president in an effort to severely limit EEF activities, including restricting them from on-campus activities.
• As the EEF battles internally with this problem of its leader aligning himself with the superintendent, the schools and community are sent mixed messages about what EEF is, what it's up to, and whether or not the district supports it.
• Based upon his recent actions, we must question where the loyalties of EEF president Bill Abrams lie. It appears, from the recent EEF meetings, that he has made some proverbial 'deal with the devil' and agreed to be Supt. Baird's henchman. This is unfortunate because EEF as an organization has become a well respected group that parents and the community can be proud of due to the efforts of past leadership and the ongoing work of those lower in the organization. We would humbly recommend that those who are other office holders in EEF use whatever procedural mechanisms may exist to oust Mr. Abrams and regain control of their very venerable and well regarded name.
• We do not yet understand why Supt. Baird would want to bring about the end of the EEF, but we're trying to. It seems unfathomable that a superintendent would intentionally seek to disband an organization whose sole mission is to raise money which is subsequently donated to the school district. Has he never heard that it's not good to look a gift-horse in the mouth?

And what did all of this amount to at the board meeting? You would assume that the school board members, four of whom have been here since Moses and should understand the dynamics of community groups like the YMCA and the EEF, would have been stunned at these strange power grabs and reacted accordingly. But, in typical fashion, they did not chastise the superintendent for alienating two of the most supportive groups in the district, they did not ask many questions or even appear all that interested. The did agree to postpone the cancellation of the YMCA after school program until further notice. 

And the perhaps the most disheartening thing is that they aren't so apathetic because they're bad people, it's because they're just too disconnected from the school district and constituents that they're supposed to serve. The board members who have been there too long need to agree that it would be best to get an infusion of new energy, oversight, and attention on the board. Please, Bill Parker, Cathy Regan, and Marla Strich: You have all had a long and productive run on the board (since the '90s). Send a message that you see the value of stepping aside for the good of the organization. Announce that you won't be seeking re-election in order to encourage folks who might like to run but are intimidated by incumbents. It will be an honorable and thoughtful thing to do.

Please attend the June 1st Board Meeting

While there may be blog posts of interest between now and then, we want to call your attention to the board meeting that will take place on Tuesday, June 1st, which will likely include several topics of serious concern. It will be unclear what will be discussed until the Friday afternoon preceding the meeting, since that's when the agenda is normally available on the district's web site. Between now an then the district will re receiving a financial update from the state, which will bear directly upon layoffs, etc. Also, it is likely that there will be a revisiting of some of the 'per projects' of the superintendent and the board. It is of crucial importance that people attend the board meetings and stay until the end, since that's often when upcoming shockers are mentioned, such as the purchase of solar for all of the schools. (Again, we're all in favor of solar, but maybe not right at this financial moment in time.)

So please consider attending, or at least reading the agenda ahead of time to see if you think any of the topics to be discussed are of interest and importance to you and you, your students, and the community. The agenda will be available on the district's website:  http://eusd.net/about/board/agendas.asp

Can't hold our tongues any more: It's time for a change

Ok, it's past time for a change.  But more about that later.

We were going to make some observations about the last board meeting (May 4th), but we've been busy working on a few things. While we've been preoccupied, somebody has beaten us to it in the form of a comment on our prior post (about the April 20th board meeting). Not sure who you are, Anonymous, but you're very observant. Thanks for the comments.

We may comment further about that meeting, but one thing that Anonymous forgot to mention was that at the end of the meeting Supt. Baird mentioned, rather casually actually, that he was moving closer to closing a deal with Sequoia Solar to purchase solar electric for all of the schools. Once again, the timing mystifies. If Baird was a military leader he would surely attempt to march on Russia in the winter. Teachers and Classified jobs are being lost, class size WILL be increased (you may be reading it here first), programs will be cut (such as the attempted cutting of the YMCA after school programs that he had to back away from under popular pressure). And examples could go on and on (VAPA program cut, TOSA positions cut, GATE program funding cut, and on, and on). Yet the superintendent continues to take this walk through Financial Fantasyland, purchasing solar, purchasing $1.7M of technology infrastructure for something that looks a lot like it's already working including phones that we use all the time without a problem, trying to purchase a new student information system to replace one that's perfectly good, and this list goes on as well.

Please do not misunderstand our concern: We are 100% in support of alternative energy sources when they make sense (or cents). The City of Encinitas put solar panels on its roof and apparently it's working out ok for them, but that program started several years ago, prior to our current economic meltdown. But right now the district is in a financial bind the likes of which we haven't seen in decades, so how can this really be the opportune time to spend yet more money on non-essentials?

Supt. Baird, to a lot of us it's starting to look like you're cutting Peter to pay Paul, and Paul is your own personal wish-list. But we can't fault the supt. alone for this. He's only doing what the board will allow him to, but that's not saying much. This board seemingly allows whatever the supt. wants, and has done so dating back to the tyrannical days of Lean King. Only Mrs. Muir seems to be asking any questions, which is too bad, since the other four board members have much more experience than she does (that is, they've been there longer than dirt), and they should know when it's time to rein in the craziness. But, like the supt., they apparently also have no sense of timing, of the dire straits in which the economy has left the district's finances, or of how such flagrantly off-base spending will be received by their bosses, the voting public.

It is due to their obviously declining interest in earnestly fulfilling their positions, their ongoing poor oversight and string of badly permissive decisions, and their general apathy toward their main stakeholders (voters, parents, employees, and most of all, students), that we have concluded there must be a change. We are calling on Bill Parker, Cathy Regan, and Marla Strich to announce publicly that they will not seek re-election in November when their terms are concluded.  This will send a message to anybody who might consider serving on the board that this would be a good time to do so. When Parker, Regan, and Strich were elected (oh those many, many, many years ago, prior to their children graduating college and entering the workforce) their hearts were in the right place. But that was sooo long ago, too long. They're too far out of touch. They've been to so many "How to be a School Board Member" conferences that they've forgotten to look inward for "Why to be a School Board Member". Really, speaking directly to the three of you now, please, make some room for new thinking, for dynamic leadership, for people who really have a stake in the game. You three have done your time, and we thank for your past contributions to EUSD, which were substantial. You were good back in the 1990's, and decent into the new millennium, but in the last 5 years or so it's become very apparent that the so-called "Dream Team" has become more of a lethargic nightmare. Not to be mean-spirited, but speaking bluntly, think of the students and hang up your hats. Please.

Updated - Board Meeting Packs a One-Two Punch

First - To all of you following the blog who have emailed, thank you for bearing with us as we have labored to collect and verify various pieces of information. We have been very heartened at the messages of encouragement and support. Thanks also to the people who continue to help us track down and understand what's taking place within the district, both at the district office and at the school sites. We realize that you do so at some professional risk and that makes your efforts even more appreciated. Your belief in transparency and your willingness to act is inspiring.

Second - Because documents play a central role in things we've decided to start uploading various documents to an "online document repository and embed links to them in our blog posts. This is "tech-speak" to those of us who are not really web-minded, but basically it means that there will be clickable links in the blog posts to view documents.

Third - While we've tried to keep to the main points and avoid being too wordy, this blog post covers a lot of ground. We hope that you find reading it will be worth your while.

April 20, 2010 "regular" board meeting - Missing item numbers mean that we've skipped those boring parts. And if you want to skip the 'somewhat interesting' parts and go directly to the juicy stuff, missing out on our commentary, we recommend items 9e, 9i, and 11j. But reading the whole post will give a better picture. Also, here's a link to the agenda document: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30899358/EUSD-Board-Agenda-April-20-2010

• 3 - Closed Session: As always there was a closed session part of the meeting, mentioned on the agenda as "conference with labor negotiators" and listing both unions. Hope that went well, but in light of the state of the budget it was probably a tough situation. The word is that TOE plans to hold the line, and a similar situation with COE. Undoubtedly more news to come on that topic. If anybody has info to share, feel free to email or comment.

• **Meeting Minutes: A note about the minutes of board meetings: Many people do not realize that the minutes of each board meeting are included for the board's approval in the agenda of the following meeting. So if you're wondering what went on at a meeting you missed, and you want the very abbreviated "official" version of the proceedings, they're in the agenda the following month. The problem is that it's almost impossible to get a full picture of what happened by just reading the minutes, and they have a distinctly "district administration flair" about them, if you get our meaning.

• 6a - Olivenhain Pioneer Faces of Character Program - A nice presentation by the principal and a 6th grade teacher about the Faces of Character program. As usual, nobody could quite figure out how to use the AV system in the board room, even though the district has paid to have it 'upgraded' multiple times the past few years, courtesy of the former superintendent. What's sad is that it's usually teachers or students who are trying to make a presentation to the board and the audience, only to have their big moment stymied by the D.O. staff's inability to master the room. This time the cast of techies was larger than usual, with Mike Guerena there, as well as the new I.T. director, and a tech-savvy principal. They did manage to get it going after some tinkering, but it's comical that the board sits there meeting after meeting watching these Keystone Cops episodes unfold, yet nobody gets it together enough to avoid the same thing 'next time'. Can't somebody be 'in charge' of the AV at the meetings?

• 6b - Teachers, Classified Employees, and Administrators of the Year - A good turnout, though some of the teachers didn't show up. Overall very nice as always.

• 8 - Public Comment - Two ladies spoke passionately about the need to keep Kathie Jenuine in her role as the Visual and Performing Arts (VAPA) coordinator, speaking about her contributions and encouragement. Those of us who know her can all agree that she's one of the most energetic and dedicated employees in the district, and it is definitely going to be the death knell of whatever is left of an arts program if/when her position is cancelled. Keep in mind that she is the only district employee whose job is dedicated to keeping the arts present in the schools (all nine of them). This will be a great loss to the students.

• 9a - Rescheduling of board meeting to an earlier date (5/4) in order to accommodate the legally required layoff notice timeline.  Well, that can't be good.

• 9b - Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRANS) - This boils down to the following statement, as nearly as we can tell: "We're pretty sure that we're going to get this money from tax collection later, so let us sell some notes against the funds now and we'll see how it goes." Apparently districts do this. It's capped at $5,000,000, and the district will pay interest on the borrowed money. It's good that the county office apparently keeps an eye on this kind of stuff. So, borrowing money and paying interest on it, that's normal, and we all know that the budget is terrible and they're laying off teachers and classified, and probably raising class size. So, it must be bad enough to warrant this move, right? Onward...

• 9c - Temporary Loan/Transfer of Funds from the County Treasurer - Ok, times are tough, you need a little advance on your paycheck. Everybody can understand that, as long as everything else is in line with these seemingly 'emergency' measures...

• 9e - Contract with Isom Advisors
• During the brief discussion about this topic Mrs. Muir questioned the spending of money on a survey in the midst of the ongoing budget problems. Tim Baird outlined that the survey would a phone poll of the district population, would be mathematically and statistically correct, etc. 
• Then Mrs. Muir said something that seemed to be a question about a tax or a bond, and the superintendent answered in the affirmative. It was apparently impossible to determine what this interchange was about because it was brief and somewhat quiet, so we had to track this down elsewhere after the fact, and we received a helpful email from concerned employees who did some Googling. As it turns out, the survey is primarily geared toward gauging support for a bond measure on the November ballot that would generate funding in the many millions of dollars to build a preschool operation on land that the district owns on Quail Gardens Road. This has apparently been discussed by the superintendent with various individuals and groups over the past few weeks. 
• What is so stunning about this is the astoundingly poor choice of timing. The district is financially in the hole, is seeking to beg and borrow money - see items above - yet wants to embark on a new business venture: a fee-based preschool. As one emailer pointed out, this is the era of TEA Party rallies and anti-tax movements, so whether or not one thinks it would be a good idea, it's almost certainly a non-starter in this political climate. Duh! And it will cost the district a pile of money to do what's necessary to get a bond on the ballot in the first place. Some of us are old enough to remember Prop. O, which was a well-timed and worthwhile bond, and it cost some money to pull off. But that was then, this is now. And that was to fix crumbling schools, while this would be to build an untested business venture that has stiff competition in the form of the YMCA preschool and just about every church preschool around. 
• Also, as one emailer pointed out, this would essentially be "Let me tax you now in the form of a bond, and charge you later to use the preschool you paid for with the tax." If it could be assured of passing, and of making money, it would be a good use of that land, which is a nice chunk of property in the heart of Encinitas. But it's unlikely that it will pass in this economy, and uncertain if it can make money or even break even. 
• As yet a third emailer suggested, why not do something obvious, like make that property temporarily into sports fields and charge the soccer, little league, YMCA, and everybody else to use it? The district makes a bundle off of the rental of the school fields, so why not make use this Quail Gardens land that's currently growing weeds? How much can it cost to 'build' a field? We're guessing it's a lot less than a preschool - and certainly a lot less than would be required for a ballot measure. Then later, when the timing is better, maybe the property can be further improved and turned into something that actually does generate revenue.
• It has become obvious that the preschool is the pet project of certain board members. This seems like a very expensive way of leaving a legacy behind.
• Anyway, the point is that an agenda item as innocuous sounding as "a feasibility study/survey to explore possible revenue generating avenues" can actually be a prelude to some kind of walk through Financial Fantasyland, all while people are being laid off and there will be more students in a classroom.
• In spite of all of that seemingly obvious logic, the board approved the contract with ISOM by a vote of 4 to 1, with Mrs. Muir voting against it and the other four board members giving their normal rubber stamp to it, and asking almost no questions.

• 9i - Technology Infrastructure Follow-up Report - And now for the truly bizarre. The new technology director presented the second part of his report on the district's technology needs. Nobody seems to have a sense of this guy yet, but if his first presentation was completely bland, this one was a mind-blower. He was apparently introduced by the Superintendent who gave him a very approving lead-in. Mr. Delacalsada then proceeded with a powerpoint that talked about the importance of technology and a strong network. He did a good job of dumbing down the techie talk, and basically said that everything is old, and that most things are on the brink of collapse. He outlined his ideas for a five-year plan to purchase all new equipment for the network, including new phone systems for the whole district, and all new technology infrastructure equipment. 
• Then came the money slide. As it turns out this plan will involve a lease-purchase plan for a BUNCH of equipment, almost $1 million dollars of it. Yes, no typo, almost one million dollars of technology equipment. Then, when you add in the lease finance charge of 4.73%, plus tax, shipping, and maintenance, the grand total of the whole package is $1,775,937.11.     Seriously.    
• As he was discussing this various stuff Mrs. Strich asked for a clarification about how much of this money and equipment would actually reach the students directly, since none of it is for actual computers in classrooms. The answer was that none of it would actually end up in classrooms, and that it was all the behind-the-scenes stuff. Mrs. Strich seemed agreeable with that answer, and she and Mr. Parker then cited several examples of money that 'had to be spent' in order to keep things running, such as a structural beam at La Costa Heights that cost $50,000 to fix. So, they agreed, sometimes you have to spend money on non-student stuff to keep things running.
• Mr. Delacalsada passed out a printed summary of his presentation and as the board members were leafing through it Mrs. Muir, who seemed a little shell-shocked by the numbers, said that it was a lot of money and that there was no detail as to how it was all going to be spent. Mr. Delacalsada then said that he could provide a list of specific equipment. 
• Mrs. Muir said something to Tim Baird about getting input from the district technology committee before making a decision of that magnitude. He replied with another stunner. He said that the technology committee was a parent group and that they probably didn't have the technology expertise required to give input on this kind of thing, so he really didn't want to involve them. We did some follow-up research on this point and it turns out that the superintendent must have no idea who is actually on the technology committee since it includes, among others, technology people from the county office of education as well as several other, much larger districts, including some district technology directors (like Poway USD, San Diego City Schools - you know, those small, out-of-the-way places that probably don't use technology). 
• Then Mrs. Muir asked where the money was going to come from and Mr. Baird deferred to Abby Saadat, who apparently said something like, 'I've already contacted my contacts at the county office about that.'  He said that there might be some money from grants, or something along those lines. Mr. Baird, perhaps having a moment of feet-to-the-fire clairvoyance, said that whether or not any special money showed up, it was very possible that come June they would be deciding to get this money out of the general fund.  That is, out of the same fund that pays for salaries, pencils, VAPA coordinators - that kind of stuff. 
• This discussion apparently went on for a few minutes and then Mr. Parker, currently making the most of being board president, cut the discussion short by going ahead with the voting. 
• Here's the $64,000 Question (remember that show?): How did the board vote? In a year when teachers are being given layoff notices, classified staff will be losing their jobs, and class size will likely rise, how did the board vote on a $1.7 million dollar item to spiff up technology infrastructure that seems to be working fine? 
• If you guessed that the vote went 4-to-1, you are a winner. Muir voted against, the other four voted in favor. Motion carried, item passed. Once again, we're trying not to become the pro-Mo blog, since we're an independent-minded group of mixed-history voting, but honest to God, there seems to be not one other board member interested in asking questions, getting discussion going, or governing in any manner aside from being patsy figureheads for the administration.
• Here's a link to the presentation document that discusses the details: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30418030/EUSD-Technology-Infrastructure-Presentation-4-20-10
• As a group we've talked about this at length, some of us parents, some district employees, and while there are some instances in which technology is sometimes a challenge, it's definitely available and it seems to work. If anything, the teachers don't get enough training to use what already exists, or not enough time to make use of it with students. As an example, the district under Lean King poured a ton of money into SuccessMaker as if it was a panacea for whatever ails a school, but didn't purchase the computers to give access to all. As a teacher in the group pointed out, even the company that produces it says it only works if a student can use it three times per week for at least 20 minutes each time. Guess what? All of us who have kids in the district checked it out and only one kid is possibly getting that much time on SuccessMaker. 
• So, it sounds like what we need is more student access to technology, not more behind-the-scenes stuff. There has also been a fall-off in classroom tech support, very clear to all. Teachers are frustrated because simple requests go unanswered or are long delayed.
• So it seems to us who are 'on the ground' and 'in the trenches' as though the administration is wandering away from the prior focus on technology in the classroom and into some kind of techie nerd spending that nobody will see. Will it be helpful somehow, somewhere? Probably so, but this particular year, of all years?

• 9j - Acceptance of Gifts - This is amazing, that in this time of economic hardship there are people giving so generously. It shows that people step up, even when it might not be the easiest thing to do.

• 10a - Financial Report - Brief summary of the current finances - nothing shocking.

• The Consent Items (the 11's) all passed without any noteworthy discussion, but we've talked about some of them below:
• 11c - Ratification of Purchase Orders - $250,812,86  This number seems to vary so widely from month to month that it's hard to say if this was normal or not. It would be interesting to actually see where this money is going (what companies it's going to).

• 11g - Change Order - Additional rolling cabinets for the Media Center at Park Dale Lane to accommodate library books - $5500.  See, now this seems reasonable. It's less than a mathematically and statistically correct phone survey, is tangible, and actually has a functional purpose.

• 11h - Bid modernization for Flora Vista Media Center - Again, possibly not the best year to do it, unless there's some of Abby Saadat's special secret stash money for capital improvements, then it's probably a good thing. That media center has that same dumpy '70's look that they all had at some point.

• 11i - Asphalting - And once again, if it's facilities-only money, sure, steam-roll away. If not, can't they just fix potholes and keep class sizes lower?

• 11j - Out of state travel for I.T. Director - "David Delacalsada, Director of Information Technology, will represent the Encinitas Union School District at a technology presentation sponsored by Intel in Las Vegas, Nevada. This presentation will help develop a technology roadmap for the district."  
• Passed, 5-0. In fairness, it was made clear that the cost of attending the presentation was paid by Intel, and that the district would bear no costs for this trip. There is lost productivity, apparently, because the I.T. Director was gone for those days.
• But the greater concern is that earlier in the evening the board gave the guy $1.7 million, and now he's off looking for a "roadmap" as to how to use it? Cart-before-the-horse? All monied-up and not sure where to go? Maybe the superintendent should reconsider that input from those uneducated folk on the tech committee, as opposed to getting an idea from a company that makes microchips. Sure, Intel is a smart company. Smart enough not to spend money on travel for a bunch of people to Las Vegas unless there's a sales pitch in it somewhere. It might be great, but suppose the 'roadmap' says, 'Turn Right into spending money on neat new stuff'?  All set.

• 11k - CBET participation - A good program, builds community involvement, but is it worth $18K in a year when the district is borrowing and begging money, and laying people off? It's a program for adults. We checked: San Dieguito Adult School has a good set of English Language class offerings. Still, it's not that much money, and the people usually come with their kids. One question: When we last checked, it made us of computers and SuccessMaker. Does that mean that if these adult English Learners were not using the stuff after school that there could be EUSD students using the same equipment for the same purpose? This really is just a question. Anybody know?

• Summarizing - The meeting started out with items that sounded a lot like borrowing money, one method involving interest charges. This is due to the budget crisis. Then things moved toward spending money to put a bond measure  on the ballot that won't pass, for a preschool that may be a financial drain. Then the board approved a $1.7M spending plan for technology 'back-end' to replace stuff that seems to be working. Yet the board majority cries crocodile tears as they talk about how layoffs hurt real people and how education in California is suffering. But, we will have that phone survey. Can we see the results of that when they're available?

The more we watch, the more we see, the more we wonder.

Have an opinion? Let us know!

Board Meeting - Good, Bad, & Some Ugly

First, thanks to the folks who attended the meeting and were willing to give their opinions and the play-by-play. Here's the summary:

The BAD: Of course the most lamentable part of the agenda was the resolution to send out layoff notices to teachers (a.k.a. “pink slips”). While such a notice doesn't necessarily mean that a teacher will not have a job next year, it leaves that option open to the district, and as we all all know, given the state of the budget, there will surely be some who will get the dreaded follow-up letter in a a few weeks. This is very sad, since teachers are the heart of the district's mission: They're where the rubber meets the road in education, and with fewer of them the district's “product” will suffer. That is, the education of our children will suffer.

Obviously the school district didn't put itself in this position and it's in a hard spot. But the way it's trying to get itself out is somewhat telling. Board member Cathy Regan made an interesting comment that went something like, “Well, 85% of our budget is salaries, so obviously we have to come up with MOST of our budget cuts from salaries.” Hmmmm - maybe, but does the bulk of that have to come from teacher salaries? Also interesting is that they want to skip over certain teachers in the layoff process, favoring the bilingual teachers over the seniority system. John Cotter, teacher union rep., spoke against this idea, but the deal seems done and is spelled out in the agenda. Of course, the more senior the teachers they can lay off, the more savings, so keeping relatively new BCLADs and laying off more senior people saves more money. They did apparently lay off one district administrator, Stephanie Niess, Administrator of Special Programs. For details, see agenda item 8-a, resolution 13-0910 Exhibits A & B regarding specific position changes and the breaking of seniority ties. Still, it's curious that they only laid one administrator from the D.O. where the big-money salaries are. Nothing against anybody there, but they're all in the $100K+/yr. range. As an example, if they were to lay off the director of Instructional Technology OR the Director of Administrative Support Services, they'd save over $150K. Lay off both of them and that's over $300K. That's quite a few teachers saved. Not that those two are bad people – only a few of us have ever even met or seen them - but neither of them are in-classroom teachers, and most of us seem to agree that teachers in the classroom are more fundamental than program directors at the district level. (Apparently one of them was at the meeting – Nancy Jones-formerly-Cunningham. Maybe they lay off the ones who don't show up to board meetings?)

And somebody else asked in our discussion today why the superintendent doesn't 'lead by example' by voluntarily taking a pay cut himself? Sure, 10% out of a salary that's something like $200K isn't a lot in the bigger salary pie, but it would be a signal that he's willing to share the burden personally, not just the professional difficulties of it. Because those teachers who lose their jobs will be shouldering a VERY personal burden.

The Ugly: Interestingly, the vote was not unanimous to pass the layoff resolution, as Maureen Muir voted against it after saying something like, “I don't think we've looked at all the options yet.” This seemed to throw Cathy Regan out of whack for a couple of minutes, and she described to Maureen the process that got them to the resolution vote last night (budget workshops and such). And both Regan and Carol Skiljan questioned where the money would come from if not from teacher salaries via the resolution, and how they would even be able to make cuts without issuing layoff notices. It was a slightly dicey exchange, but not an obvious right-wrong one, since there's a case to be made for the leeway that the resolution affords the district in dealing with the budget, but also no doubt that teachers should be the LAST to be cut. (Well, ok, teachers and certain school site classified employees – you can't run a school without office staff and custodians.) But one observer said that in her opinion it was a gutsy move on “Mo's” part, as she apparently said she has other ideas of how to find money, risking the wrath of the other board members. It's unclear what her ideas are, so maybe that will be a highlight of the next meeting. In any case, this was the only spectator-sport aspect of the evening.

The Good (you thought we forgot the good, huh?):
A bunch of monetary gifts were accepted for various programs, mostly from EEF, but some from others as well. It was a pile of money, really, almost $190,000! Very cool to see in this current state of affairs. Maybe somebody should put EEF and the other donors in charge of getting over this budget hump. How long does it take to raise $6,000,000? If we had a jog-a-thon every day...

Also, the new technology director talked about his assessment of the district's technology and where it's headed. Basically he said that a lot of stuff is very old and will need to be replaced if the district wants to keep up with the technology Jones'. He said that stuff was old in about four different ways, but his points seemed ok. One person said that she thought he seemed surprised that such old stuff was still running, at which point Carol Skiljan said that educators can keep things running with string. This was when one of the teachers in the audience turned to check for shock from the Noesis-shirted guy in the back row who apparently had no expression. The technology guy then went into talking about the new phones that have been rumored to be on the list of stuff to buy, and he mentioned combining the network and phones together, and cool features that such phones can provide, like allowing people to have their phones 'follow' them if they're moving around the district, and even that the superintendent could answer his office phone from home if he was working from there. While this sounded like something that would be 'ideal', it also sounded a lot like something that should be put off into the indefinite future until after all of the laid-off teachers are re-hired. He didn't seem to be advocating purchasing exactly anything in particular, but Marla Strich was nodding her head so fast in agreement that she looked like one of those bobble-headed dogs that people put in their rear car window. Why does she care so much about new phones? Weird.

Abby Sadat reviewed the budget, which seemed like a long bunch of accounting lingo, but which looked in decent shape on paper. The problem is that his review was for THIS year so far, not for next year, starting in July, which is when the real financial pain will set in. (PS – Who knew that Paul Ecke Central has a $100,000 trust fund? None of us. Nice to have, though they apparently only spend the interest from it, which in this economy is probably about five bucks a month.)
Some jobs for instructional aides will be collapsed together and brought inside as district jobs – currently filled by contracted outside services. A special needs parent in our little group says it was a good move, so we'll take her word for it. Also, it seems to make sense on paper in the agenda.

The Unknown: The superintendent closed the meeting with a discussion of a new strategy that he wants to try when doing strategic planning. Since none of us really know what has ever come out of the strategic planning process except a vague document that looks good when put one-page-at-a-time into a Power Point for the board's self-congrats, we're not really sure what to make of his idea. Maybe it will be good, but the veteran (read: possibly jaded?) district folks among us tend to think that this isn't really going to be different than in the past, only because we have yet to see one of these plans that's actually at all 'strategic'.

Wrap-Up: The board members seemed to have been mostly on auto-pilot as usual, with the possible exception of Maureen Muir's surprise 'nay' vote on the layoff thing. Marla Strich talked about her kid's victorious robotics team at San Dieguito. Cathy Regan rambled a little about something that nobody could quite recall today, and as always, some of them were making plans to travel to various conferences, etc. One event that's apparently coming up is something for which Carol Skiljan is “now in charge of sending out those email invitations”, which she was quick to point out to the group. This item got a quick couple of minutes of chatter, with Bill Parker asking, “Yeah, doesn't that one have a menu?” One observer remarked that he seemed more focused on this opportunity to choose between chicken or fish than on much else during the evening. In closing, that's why we have this blog. Thanks for visiting. Tell your friends.

If you want to see the agenda, click here: March 9th agenda

Honeymoon is officially OVER.

Hello to readers/followers of our blog!

After the debacle that was Lean King's administration, we were determined to give "the new guy" a fair shake. We decided to stop posting for awhile and see if new superintendent Tim Baird lived up to the promise he showed early on. To all of you who submitted posts that we didn't publish, we tried to reply to each of you individually with our reasoning in this "give him a chance" thinking. Thanks for the many messages of support, information, and encouragement.

Having been silent now for many months, we have watched in sad disillusionment as things have not taken the great turn for the better that we'd hoped for. While Dr. Baird is seemingly a 'nice' person, which is a definite improvement over his predecessor, he has not shown the strong leadership for which we all were sincerely hoping. It seems clear, given the record of board agenda items and other actions, that Dr. Baird is a combination of lap-dog for the entrenched board members (especially Skiljan and Strich), and a guy trying to make do some good things but going about them in all of the wrong ways, and with no head for management.

As a result of what we - parents, teachers, and other district staff - have observed, heard, discussed, and concluded, we feel as though we've given the 'new regime' more than enough time to show their true colors. Sadly, it seems that they have, and we see so many individually bad decisions that we must conclude that Dr. Baird is really "not getting it". Still, that fact on its own isn't the problem. The larger issue lies in the bad direction, poor spending, and very imprudent decision making that has been going on during the current, and very severe budget problem. The district is talking of laying off 24 teachers, yet at the same time, they're mentioning things at the board meetings and in the schools about spending money needlessly. They're talking about selling a prime piece of real estate at the bottom of the market in order to build a fee-based pre-school in order to give some entrenched board members a 'legacy'. They have plans (hopefully now on hold) to carry out new construction at a school or two, and last week the superintendent mentioned the idea of getting new phone systems for the schools. Really? Is this the time to replace phones that aren't broken and to build new 'stuff' that will require money to operate and maintain? The phones in our classrooms work fine, and we'd rather see fewer teachers laid off than to see the purchase of some new student data system that we don't need, possibly a solar project that will cost a bundle, and the retention of high-end employees that do little to justify their salaries.

So, while we had hoped to eventually find no need to post things on this blog, it seems that just the opposite is now the case. We'll be posting more information in the coming days in order to get the word out about what's going on. In the meantime, please consider attending the school board meeting tomorrow night (Tuesday, the 9th). This will be an ideal time to voice concerns before it's too late to save some teacher and classified jobs, and to avert wasteful spending that's on the table. Ask questions! Don't take wishy-washy answers as being ok! And remember: we voted them into those chairs, they hired the superintendent, and they approve/deny his plans and requests. They work for US, for the families that live here!

One note: As we said some time ago, while several of us did not vote for Maureen "Mo" Muir, we are all now convinced that she's the only truly independent thinker on the board. Our little blogging group is split, about 50/50, when it comes to political affiliation, but even the Democrats among us are willing to give "Mo" some room to get something done, since she's the only one asking any tough questions at the board meetings. The other four board members are never at the schools, as far as any of us have seen, and even the two who have actual jobs (Parker and Regan) should know that when you run for an elective office you need to be willing to make some sacrifices in other areas of life, like occasionally taking a personal day from your job to see first-hand what goes on the the schools where your constituents send their children.

Please attend the board meeting and let your voices be heard. Laying off 24 teachers while keeping on highly paid administrators is unaccpetable. Talking about buying fancy new phone systems at this time is unacceptable. And those of us who work in the schools can say first-hand that we do not need to go through the pain of changing student data systems AGAIN, for the third or fourth time in a few years. One of us in the blog group uses the current system every day. All of us who are teachers use it to take attendance - every day. The fact that the district is considering spending the time, pain, and money to change something that we JUST learned how to use is unbelievable to those of us who may lose our jobs. How about this: Let's keep WHAT we have until we can afford to keep WHO we have.

- The Group

What does July 1st mean for EUSD?

Today, July 1st, 2009, will hopefully mark a passage into a new era at EUSD, as Lean King fades into the rear-view mirror of history, and our hopes remain high that Dr. Tim Baird will bring a genuinely fresh set of eyes to the institution. Still, we remain guarded in our optimism since it has been the board of trustees that has been primarily culpable, allowing and abetting Mr. King in his divisive course. Perhaps, if Dr. Baird puts forth a positive and sincere effort, the board will fall into step with him, reversing course as they so quickly seemed to do after the departure of Dr. DeVore. While none of us (bloggers) is particularly partisan, and we have no affiliation with the board's list of “usual suspects” (ie – we aren't TIP parents), we feel it important to mention that this fault lies with the longstanding members of the school board, and not, as yet, with the board member who is new to the situation, Maureen Muir. To date she seems to be exhibiting a strong streak of independence, which is, in itself, a very hopeful sign. Her unaccompanied appearances out-and-about at the schools has not gone unnoticed, her presence at such events as EEF meetings, and her willingness to speak up against the normally lock-step majority in board meetings on issues like academic consultant rates, are all laudable and refreshing. It seems, to those of us who've been around awhile, that there was a time when Mrs. Skiljan and Mr. Parker were of a similar nature: independent in their thoughts and comments. With any luck and the influence of a new superintendent, perhaps they will rekindle or dust off those qualities within themselves. For Mrs. Strich and particularly Mrs. Regan, for differing reasons, there seems to be no cause for optimism in this area. That topic will lend itself to a separate blog entry, forthcoming.

For today, let's welcome Dr. Baird with genuine goodwill, and give him the benefit of the doubt: Perhaps he is his own person, makes his own assessments of situations, of people, of right and wrong, and will come to see clearly the very great task that lies before him. He has waded into the middle of the muck that has been carefully stirred and fermented by his predecessor over these last few years, and he will need the support and help of all of us if he is to steer the district toward a restoration of its former “self”.

On a somewhat tangential note, one of us, a teacher in the district, found last week that this blog's website has evidently been blocked by the district and can no longer be accessed from school campuses, with the administration using its Internet filter to accomplish this. Apparently Mr. King wanted to get off one parting shot before his tenure came to a close, though it was too little, too late, since teaching staff has been advised that campuses are closed for the summer and office staff seem to be gone as well. Still, this is a quintessential example of the Lean King method of engaging dissent: quash, derail, and stifle, using bully tactics and his position of control to do so. The Internet filter, supposedly in place to protect students from pornography and hate-group websites, seems to be quickly and easily co-opted for use in censoring open discussion that Mr. King and/or the board find unpalatable. It is regrettable that they would choose to use technology, which can so easily foster discussion and open exchange of ideas, as a means of suppressing those things, and bears a sad similarity to larger world events (Lean Ahmadinejad?). They encourage us as educators to use it in a way that promotes collaboration, but we must point out to the many EUSD employees who are following this blog and have sent email and comments, be aware that the administration evidently does not have qualms about using the technology police to shape the information you see while at school. Sad. Perhaps the new guy will reconsider.

What's wrong with EUSD

Dear blog reader,

In the interest of brevity we’ll get right to the point, though this first post will likely be longer than it should be, since we're talking about the troubles of the Encinitas Union School District. There are many of us in Encinitas and South Carlsbad with deep connections to the Encinitas Union School District. Some of us are parents, some are teachers, some are classified employees, and some are just concerned community members who once had students at EUSD. We have in common a deep concern about the current state and direction of the district. The tenure of Lean King, his tyrannical and heavy-handed tactics and his general divisiveness, have had a terribly and profoundly corrosive effect on almost every aspect of this school district that was once a collegial and community-friendly place. Still, while Lean King has been the primary agent of this negative change, we also lay blame at the feet of the board of trustees who have remained blissfully ignorant (possibly purposefully ignorant) as they’ve rubber-stamped the superintendent’s actions since his arrival. They have presided over his systematic dismantling of the goodwill and camaraderie which had been painstakingly built up by Dr. Doug Devore, the prior superintendent. During his tenure, Dr. Devore was definitely a “uniter not a divider” and it’s fair to say that the district was at a high point in terms of its good relationships with stakeholders when Dr. Devore retired. The teacher and classified unions were on good terms with the district, the PTA and EEF folks worked well with the district, and the district’s relations with community groups and city governments were very functional and cordial. Without exception, all of those relationships have suffered severe setbacks under the current district leadership, and some have collapsed altogether, generally as a result of the tactics and manipulations that are Lean King’s modus operandi. Where once there was trust there is now distrust, where there was optimism there is pessimism, and where there were groups working toward common purposes there are now adversaries with mutual suspicions.

We were all, as a community, willing to give Mr. King a chance when he arrived, and to overlook what seemed to many of us to be a poor choice of superintendent on the part of the school board. In retrospect, that willingness to give him the benefit of the doubt was a mistake, but it was, nonetheless, the right thing to do. How could we have known that the board of trustees, which had been so ably guided and advised by Dr. Devore, would allow themselves to be led so blindly and wildly astray by a slick manipulator whose primary gift is orchestrated self-promotion? And then, as those early months passed, the climate of open communication and consensus was replaced by fear and intimidation, which then seemed to move down the org. chart like a weed. From the district office staff onward to the principals and school staff, to the teachers and parents, and finally to the community at large and the city folks. The advice all around became, “keep low and don’t make waves, or else”. Of course, with hindsight being 20-20, it’s clear that we’ve all waited too long to speak up with one voice, and that by our lack of action we’ve allowed things to disintegrate to such a state.

This blog grew out of a conversation that started out with the hopeful idea that the new superintendent will absolutely recognize the disastrous damage that his predecessor has caused, and the extent to which the school board is oblivious or complicit. Then we had a realization: The school board has regarded Lean King as some sort of hero on a pedestal and has made no secret of that, so it’s unlikely that the new guy will aspire to do anything different, and could see the emulation of Mr. King as his path of least resistance. This frightening realization, that the school board’s Lean-love will cause the new superintendent to use the disastrous past four years as some kind of playbook, made it clear that all EUSD stakeholders must speak with some cohesiveness, and that we must give people a way to do so without the fear of reprisal that has kept so many at bay since King’s arrival. Though we (the bloggers) are involved in EUSD in various ways, we all regularly hear conversations, and have conversations, about how things seem so tense, how the teachers and administrators are on edge and the staff seems angry, the parent groups are fighting with each other and with the district, and the superintendent has so alienated the City of Encinitas folks that it’s unlikely there will be any constructive dialog in that area for some time.

So, when we hear a conversation, we’re going to put it here, assuming it’s not told to any of us in confidence. (Hence, the blog name: As EUSD in Conversation.) It’s surprising how each of us, in her/his own role, hears the same things, over and over and over, and then the people who are venting say, “But, we can’t do really do anything about this, right?” Well, in theory, even the school district is a democracy, and all it will take is enough people wanting the same thing to get something done. That may mean that the current rubber-stamp board will suddenly get concerned and re-involve themselves. More likely, it seems to us, they are too out of touch and self-absorbed in being “The Board” to really “get it”, and that will probably mean that the election of 2010 will be a watershed event. In fairness to the newest board member, she‘s too new on the scene to be categorized one way or the other, so our jury is still out about her. She may prove better, or just as bad, but the four veterans have definitely been disastrous since Mr. King arrived and began so expertly pulling their strings. In any case, something will change. What happens next is for all of us, the involved and concerned, to determine. One thing is evident: Things must not continue as they have been if the district is to be returned to some semblance of its former goodness and high caliber. If you feel strongly about this as well, please join us in discussion