Monday, September 28, 2015

D181 Elementary Math Ability Groupings -- The BOE Mandated Them. Will the Administration Comply?

Per a reader's request, we are creating a free standing post on whether or not the D181 Administration will be implementing the mandated return of Elementary Math Ability Groupings.

Anonymous said...
To the Bloggers:
Would you please make a free standing post on the ridiculous excuse for a math ability grouping update in Dr. White's board of education report for Monday's meeting? Parents should be aware that the administration is stalling and asking for more time to collect results on how our kids are doing in math after completing two chapters. The Board told Dr. White math must have ability groups and it looks like this depends on the teacher your kid gets. Also, Dr. T is only working 100 days in the Learning Department. By my count she has already worked about 37 days. What projects has she or will she complete since math ability grouping results won't be reviewed now until sometime in October?
Another waste of time and money. More lip service from the administration. 

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

PARCC Assessment Comments -- "Read them and Weep....."

We have begun receiving a steady stream of comments regarding the release of the PARCC Assessment Results.  We are happy to oblige an anonymous reader's request that we create a free standing post where comments can be submitted.  Below are the ones we have already received. As alway, we invite you to sound off!

Be sure to click on the link in the last comment copied below.  It shows the preliminary data ISBE released today.  Pitiful. Looks like school district administrative spin machines are about to kick into high gear state wide.....

Comments received so far:

Anonymous said...
Part 1: Bloggers: I'm copying an email letter D181 parents and community members received today and that is also posted on the D181 website regarding the upcoming state release of the PARCC assessment scores. That is the test that replaced the ISAT tests. I don't know about you, but I read this letter as preemptive excuse making, should D181's students score badly.....

Text of Letter: "This letter is to share news on the initial release of PARCC Assessment data and to provide an update on efforts to review our District 181 Assessment Framework.

Assessments are of critical importance for continuous improvement. They are used to support students by informing instruction, guiding differentiation, and measuring growth for individuals and groups of learners. Some assessments provide immediate feedback, and some are used to create comparative analyses over time. To this end, we have built a robust assessment framework that includes nationally normed assessments as well as formative assessments that help our classroom teachers make day-to-day decisions about students' content mastery and help our team of educators make long-term decisions about curriculum and instruction across the District.

Our Assessment Framework must include a balance of all types of assessments while also being sensitive to the time that is taken from the actual tasks of teaching and learning. We are currently reviewing this balance and considering which assessments could be eliminated in response to consistent feedback from teachers, parents, and administrators. It is important we continue to talk with our community about why we administer each of our assessments, how they benefit students, are how they are used in decision making.

The PARCC Assessment is not being considered for elimination, as it is state-mandated, having replaced the previous Illinois Standards Assessment Test (ISAT). The first administration of the PARCC Assessment during the 2014-15 school year was a challenge for districts across the state. Change can be hard, especially considering the move from a written format to an online format and most importantly, the alignment of PARCC questions to the new Common Core standards. I am extremely proud of the partnership of D181 staff and parents in supporting our students' participation. We did not allow what seemed to be daunting hurdles to get in the way of our efforts to create a positive testing experience."
Anonymous said...
Part 2 -- Letter from Don White re PARCC tests:

"I recently received a communication from the State Superintendent Dr. Tony Smith in which he notes that the State Board of Education will release "the initial, and still incomplete, statewide results from the PARCC test" on Wednesday, September 16. I am excited to see how Illinois students have performed. According to Dr. Smith, district and student level data is not ready for release to school districts and may not be shared until later this fall. We will post a link to the released data on our website as it is made available ( > Learning > Assessment > PARCC). On this same webpage, we have posted an important memo outlining changes to PARCC that have been announced for 2015-16.

I think it is extremely important we understand that PARCC is simply one assessment, a part of the District's overall assessment framework along with components like the MAP Assessment, end-of-unit tests, and teacher observations. We must be cautious not to overreact to any one set of data and should focus on how data can inform and ultimately improve our work. Dr. Smith highlighted this caution in regard to the PARCC data. He shared that while the numbers are not final, the percentage of students across Illinois who demonstrate proficiency are likely to be lower than the percentage of students who were proficient on the ISAT. The State Superintendent said it well when he offered that "the initial [PARCC] results are simply a new baseline from which we can move forward."

Taking on warranted challenges are worth the effort when students benefit and when educators are stretched to consider new strategies for improving our practices to better support the children we serve. I am confident that if the State can accomplish the goal of providing individual student results by the start of the school year in the future, PARCC will be a great tool to help educators provide improved learning opportunities.


Don White, Ph.D.
Jill Quinones said...
I guess I am most troubled by the last sentence that reads in part "PARCC will be a great tool to help educators provide improved learning opportunities." As we know, more and more states, both those that have and have not abandoned the Common Core, have dropped out of PARCC. Illinois is now one of only 12 or 13 states using it. A recent article in Education week revealed that cut scores were set by teachers sent from each state analyzing data and making recommendations to PARCC representatives who then looked at where the actual student test scores would fall using those teacher-recommended scores and then adopted "mid range" cut scores - whatever that means. I have never heard of test cut scores being based on actual student performance when you are trying to hold students to a certain standard of performance.

My understanding is that the scores posted tomorrow will not include those from students who took the test paper/pencil - only computer. In Ohio that meant 36% of the students' scores were not included.

As a teacher, no one has yet been able to articulate to me in any specific way how a student's score on this test will translate into improved learning opportunities. I personally have little faith that the scores will really reflect what the CCSS expect to be mastered.
Jill Quinones said...
For anyone interested, PARCC released today a mock score report:

Level 2 Standard score 700, Level 3 725, Level 4 750 and Level 5 depends on grade and subject. No word on how actual score translated into Standard Score....
Jill Quinones said...
PS - States are allowed to change the Pearson-set cut scores and set there own...
Anonymous said...
Bloggers: Please create a freestanding post for PARCC comments. Here's another one. Read this and weep:
Anonymous said...
No one in HS Math exceeded expectation on the PARCC assessment:

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

D181's Plans for a New Hinsdale Middle School? Sound Off!

No, we are not back.  However, today we received a comment regarding the unveiling of the three preliminary architectural plans for a new Hinsdale Middle School that were presented last night at one of the three meetings D181 is hosting this week.  Since this is clearly going to be an important topic of discussion for all D181 taxpayers over the next six months, we have decided to post the first comment below and create this free standing post for our readers to post comments on regarding building a new HMS and the referendum that would need to pass in order to raise the money for a new school.

Please sound off on this important topic!

Anonymous said...
I went to the facilities thing the district hosted last night at HMS. There were three architectural firms there, each with a different design for a new school. All three designs were interesting, though not necessarily in a good way.

One design I felt was very cool; it has a green roof classes can go to, plus terrariums and a large auditorium. However, as we saw with HMS and the "open concept" design, what's "cool" now doesn't mean it'll remain "cool" for the entire life span of the building. Plus, I don't know how practical it would be.

Another design had the main building, plus three "houses" connected to it, one for each grade level. I find this interesting, but not in a good way. I also talked to the architects about student capacity: 825 students. I'm sorry, but that's pathetic. HMS has frequently had over 825 students for the last decade. So I asked how easy it would be to expand, and add portables. They looked at me like I had three heads. They told me that they had projected 800-850 students. How far into the future did these projections go? 5 years? 10? And for a building that should last 40+ years, that's unacceptable. Should the district get a large influx of students, where will we put them? Build a third middle school?

The third design was probably the most boring, yet most practical. Lots of classrooms, plus an auditorium & gymnasium/fitness lab available for public use. However, on the blueprints, there's a student locker room on the opposite side of the building from the gym. There was nothing in the immediate vicinity the locker room would be used for. So I asked one of the architects, and he agreed that the placement didn't make sense, so he gestured for another architects with the firm to take a look. She said that it was so that the public couldn't look into it. Um… you can still attach it to the gym, and have it inaccessible to the general public. To make it worse, there were already locker rooms attached to the gym, apparently for public use. ?!? What the heck were they thinking? Plus, it would take around 1-2 minutes to go to the locker rooms to change into gym clothes, another 1-2 minutes to go back to the gym, plus all that again to change back into regular clothes at the end of class. So in a 42 minute period, students lose about 1/8 of the class just to go to & from the locker room, which doesn't include actual changing time, which probably gets closer to 1/4 of the period lost.

All designs had similar issues though: where are the day-today, behind-the-scenes stuff? Where's the elevator? Is it in an accessible place? Where are the staff bathrooms, staff lounge, copy/work rooms, custodial work areas, IT room? The kind of stuff where if you're there once, it's a minor inconvenience. But for students & staff there all day, everyday, it's a nightmare. All of the architects said the same things: this is very early drafts, and can change. I hope they get input on the needs, and not just from central office administrators. They really need to actively get input from the building staff & students/parents. Plus, don't go with what's "cool": go with what's practical and lasts for the 40+ year life of the school. Plus, make contingencies for if/when we get a lot more students, and parking.

On a separate matter, I heard that the 6th graders were finally able to hold classes in the new portables. Woo-hoo! Unfortunately, with the rain, there were already leaks in each room, along with the ramp. Are you (expletive) kidding me? What bozos are running this circus? Fortunately, I hear it was small drips in the classrooms, but still leaks nonetheless. We really need more competent people here.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Welcome Back to School and Good Luck!

This morning our children headed back to school. The D181 teachers have been busy over the last week getting their classrooms ready and engaging in staff development activities as they await the return of their young charges. Parents have been hard at play all summer with their children, enjoying time off from last year's chaos and turmoil in the classrooms and the ever changing curriculum model our kids were subjected to for four years. Now it's time for everyone to return to the business of learning and so we welcome both students and D181 staff back to all nine schools and wish them the very best for the 2015-2016 school year.

With the start of the new school year, we -- the bloggers -- have made a decision to "stand down" following this post. Our readers might expect that with all of the important issues D181 students, staff and taxpayers are going to face this year, that we would continue posting regularly in our continuing quest to ensure transparency in all things D181. However, we have decided not to.  Why is that, our readers might be asking? The reasons include:

1.  We have written about important issues for over two years and provided a forum for the community to speak out without fear of repercussion, however, it is time to pass the baton to younger parents who need to step up to the plate and push for accountability and transparency by the district authorities -- the administration and the Board of Education. As we drove or walked our older children to school this morning, we saw the smiling and proud faces of the district's youngest learners --  5 and 6 years olds, who are starting the first year of their nine year D181 educational journey.  For some of these children, they are the oldest in their family and their parents have no experiences with the curriculum turmoil that older students have gone through. For others, parents of older students --while they too were smiling -- they may have been feeling trepidation (as we were) over what this year will hold for their children. In both instances, these parents must now do more than smile and hope for the best. They need to stay engaged, alert, attentive and not tolerate any harm coming to their children from poor administrative and curricular decisions. They need to assume responsibility, get involved and stay involved in overseeing their student's education and not just assume that because their students are enrolled in D181 that everything is perfect and cannot be improved.

2.  We hope that the Board of Education will partner with parents to demand that the administration be held accountable for its poor (and in our opinion, harmful) past decisions and take the necessary steps to ensure that our children are no longer harmed academically by the continuation of the  experimental, social justice ideological, untested, unproven curriculum models that the administration forced upon our children for four years.

3.  Three new board members, Leslie Gray, Jennifer Burns and Richard Giltner have for the most part impressed us since they joined the BOE in May. Along with Board President Mridu Garg, they have been asking the right questions and were instrumental in forcing the administration to begin to change the one size fits all instructional model that clearly wasn't working for our students. In addition to asking meaningful and pointed instructional and assessment questions, they have also started asking tough questions about district expenses. It is our hope that they will not back down and will continue to demand answers and information on any issue that impacts our children and our pocketbooks.  In fairness to their efforts to date, we do not think it would be productive or constructive to (for lack of a better term) "micromanage" all of their actions. Change takes time and we believe the new BOE is well positioned to move the district in a positive direction. So we will give them the opportunity to assume the torch and shine a public light on the good and the bad in D181 and more importantly, fix the bad. We hope they don't let us down.

There will be many D181 issues that will impact students and taxpayers this year and it is our hope and expectation that the BOE will insist that the administration provide them and and all residents real, accurate, timely and unbiased information so that ALL OF US, can make well informed decisions. These issues include:

1.  Is Dr. White doing a good job as the superintendent and should his three year contract be renewed? He is starting year 2 of a 3 year contract and by the end of this school year, the BOE should decide whether or not he should be told his contract will/won't be renewed so, if necessary, there will be time to conduct a search for a new superintendent during his third year. What should influence the BOE's decision?

a.  Have the administrators Dr. White recommended the BOE hire and is responsible for overseeing been successful? Specifically, he recently split (with no reduction in salary) Dr. Schneider's job responsibilities and hired a second Assistant Superintendent of Learning. Unfortunately (as some of the new board members bravely pointed out at the last board meeting), hiring someone who is retired and can only work 100 days is very troubling. Whether that person works 100 straight days and then the district has to hire another interim, or works two months straight and then only part time for the rest of the year, the bottom line is that this is not an effective approach to address the curriculum crisis that they are walking into. Whatever the "real" reasons are for Dr. White's decision to hire a second Assistant Superintendent of Learning, in our opinion, this decision should have been made months earlier, well before the summer break, so that a PERMANENT, FULL TIME, QUALIFIED, EXPERIENCED CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTIONAL LEADER WHO UNDERSTANDS AND CAN RELATE TO OUR DEMOGRAPHIC could have been recruited and hired. The BOE must pay careful attention to the actual work done by the interim administrator(s) Dr. White brings on board, because our children cannot afford for any time to be wasted attempting to undo the curriculum mess. Someone should have been hired whose sole focus was to right the sinking curriculum ship, and not just do "projects" (as Dr. White stated in the district press release that the new interim would be doing). The BOE also needs to keep a close eye on the new assessment director who we are not confident possesses the correct skill set to effectively analyze our student's performance data and report on the effectiveness of our children's curriculum.

b.  Does Dr. White hold his administrators accountable? For two years we have written about the failure by the administration and the past BOE to hold staff accountable for poor decisions and the negative impacts on our students. We have argued this until we are blue in the face. Before the BOE renews Dr. White's contract, it must decide not only if the administrators he has hired are actually doing their jobs and doing them well, but if they have not, has Dr. White held them accountable, or has a "circling the wagons" mentality simply continued in order to protect under performing administrators. In addition to Dr. White's new hires, has Dr. White provided sufficient justification to the BOE to keep administrators that are not pulling their weight in the Department of Learning (you all know who we are referring to)? Taxpayers pay the extremely generous salaries of all D181 staff. We should not have to pay high salaries for bad administrators.

c.  Does Dr. White understand our community's demographic and really understand (or want to understand) the type of educational environment that will make all of our students thrive? Does he really want to hear what residents have to say or will this be another year where there is no meaningful, public forum such as a Town Hall Meeting despite repeated requests for one?

2.  Are all student's being taught to their academic level and are they being properly identified?  We have spent two years reporting on the curriculum mess in D181.  Rather than fixing the identification process for placing students into different academic tiers in math and language arts (or into the now defunct gifted programs), the district embarked on a four year curriculum revamp that morphed from an attempt to implement more effective differentiation for all students to an Advanced Learning Plan with math acceleration for all students, to a  Learning for All Plan with a one size fits all inclusive integrate class room model to what we have renamed the Learning for None plan.  Throughout this journey, despite brave parents stepping up to demand grade level instruction for their students who should never have been slotted in the "everyone will be accelerated in math" model, and despite a proper data performance evaluation of the curriculum changes and their impact on students, in our opinion, the administration's attitude was nothing more than a warped version of the Emperor's New Clothes.  The BOE and community were repeatedly told that the new programs were great and everyone should be able to see that, and the old BOE allowed the "Map" to be redrawn over and over again with no real destination in sight other than an experimental journey to reach a socially just nirvana.  Finally the NEW BOE stepped up to the plate and said, enough is enough.  Time to change course again and actually, reverse course.  So now academic tiers and placement testing into tiers have made a return to the district.  But with this most recent change, come the "same old questions" of years past.  Is the identification process currently being used to place our students better than the one that was thrown out four years ago?  How will we know if what the administration is telling the BOE regarding placement decisions is valid?  We hope the BOE will start the year by asking these important questions and not turning a blind eye to "Emperor's New Clothes" type answers.

3  Best Practices.  Anything that impacts our students in the classroom should be based upon best practices.  In another instance of the Emperor's New Clothes, our community has been asked to simply believe that all the curriculum changes forced upon our students were based upon best practices.  For years, brave parents and board members demanded to see the proof that would establish that best practices were being implemented through the Advanced Learning/Learning for All plans.  In our opinion, the proof of best practices was never presented to us or the BOE.  With the curriculum changes being implemented this year, we hope and expect the BOE to insist that if the administration says something is based on best practice that they actually have to prove it.  Otherwise, we fear that this year will be nothing more than a continuation of the past curriculum mess.

4.  Facilities and the Impact on Taxpayers.  We could probably set up an entire blog to track the decisions that will be made (first by the BOE and then by taxpayers) on the future of Hinsdale Middle School.  In the next month or so, architectural schematics on "what to do" with HMS will be presented to the community during public meetings.  Issues surrounding the future of HMS include: Should it be renovated and possibly expanded?  Should it be torn down and a new school built?  Is it "fair" that HMS students have to attend a school that some believe is sub-standard when compared to the 8 other schools in the district? What will the two options cost the taxpayer?  Will the community support a referendum for either option?  What will happen if a referendum fails?  Dr. White has told the BOE that a decision must be made whether to go to referendum to  raise money needed for either option as early as March 2016.  That is less than seven months away.  As we sit on the sidelines and watch Dr. White, the BOE, the facilities committee and the finance committee take first crack at debating the issues, we have to say that we are not confident that a referendum for either option stands a chance at passing, at least not the first time around.  Why do we lack confidence?

a. We lack this confidence because while the community has been asked to complete an online survey on the future of HMS, no actual financial information was provided in the survey. We know, because we have taken it. Yes, some broad projections were provided, but they were provided AFTER the questions on what option was preferred. And those projections were not based upon any actual schematics that were received by the district. In our opinion, the administration is wasting our time with useless surveys. They should have waited until the schematics were presented by the various architectural firms and once the actual cost of each proposal was vetted and converted to taxpayer impact scenarios (for more than an owner of a $500,000 home) THAT information should have been presented to us in a survey asking for our opinions on both options.  WE ARE ALL SUPER INTELLIGENT TAX PAYERS. The administration will not be able to snow us on such an important capital decision that will negatively impact our tax bill regardless of which option we might or might not support. What we need to know is what will the financial hit actually be and then tell us why we should be willing to support it. We are already troubled by the information stream we are being given before we are asked to give the BOE and administration our opinions. That approach needs to change if we are to feel confident in any referendum request.

b.  We also lack confidence in what option is best for HMS because even now, the much smaller project of installing extra mobile units to increase learning space capacity could not be completed in time for the first day of school. We have heard Dr. White and the administration blame the Village of Hinsdale for slowing down the permitting process. But in our opinion, the Village of Hinsdale did nothing wrong. It was the administration that should have decided months earlier than it did, that mobile units were needed for this school year. Had they asked the BOE to approve the mobile units in late winter or early spring, they would have been able to seek the permits and start the installation process right after school let out for the summer.  Instead, the BOE wasn't asked to approve the mobiles until late spring. Even under the best scenarios, the administration should have been foreseen that the mobiles would not have been ready on time with such a late start to the project.  The administration should have been more candid about that from day one, rather than represent that the project would be completed by the time school resumed.  Having to make the walk of shame at the last board meeting and admit the work wouldn't be completed in time was hard, but for the administration to not assume any responsibility for this poor planning was really shameful. What we are left with is the sad realization that the incoming 6th graders -- who by the way are the same "guinea pig" students who were experimented on and harmed by the acceleration for all, social justice/all inclusive, integrated classroom/one size fits all model -- are now starting their middle school experience as displaced students. While this inconvenience will hopefully only last a week or two, as parents, we should all be asking just how many negative experiences does the administration expect to put our children through before we are forced to consider moving them out of district? If we can't trust the administration to get a small capital improvement project done in a timely way, how can we trust them with the huge undertaking of renovating or building an entire building?

5.  Other Taxpayer issues.  A can that has been kicked down the road for the last several years by the Illinois legislators is how to fix the public employee pension system.  The legislators have debated options that include moving the pension burden to the individual districts and if this happens, the district will be forced to spend millions of dollars each year funding the teacher pensions.  That is money that will reduce our operational budget and may force the district to spend down its reserves or ask the tax payers to approve an operational referendum (beyond any capital referendum to fix/rebuild HMS).  The administration has not built projections on the possible impact of such legislation into the school budget, and we think this is irresponsible.  It is pretty clear from the ongoing political debate that school funding models will be changing.  In addition to the pension changes, the idea of freezing property taxes has been floated in Springfield.  All of these changes will affect our pocket books and schools. While the Illinois legislators have managed to delay school funding decisions, it is not in D181's best interest to pretend that change is not going to happen.  The administration should be planning for the "rainy day" and presenting these plans to the BOE.  The administration's failure to do so should cause all of us taxpayers to question any attempts to raise our taxes.

There are no doubt many more issues that we could list, but we will stop with these five. Our hope, however, is that all of our readers and D181 taxpayers/residents will not stop. Our hope is that you will all stay informed on any issue that you think impacts your children's education and your pocketbook. While this will be our last blog post, we do not intend to shut down the blog to community member comments. We encourage our readers to send in comments on any concerns or complements you have relating to D181. We also encourage the District Teachers to continue to use this as a forum to let us know if there are issues or staff concerns that parents should be aware of.  More importantly, we encourage our readers to be brave and fight for what you think is right for all of D181's students. Don't be afraid to speak up. Don't be afraid to ask questions. Don't be afraid to demand accountability.  Remember that the school board members were elected by all of you to do represent the electorate (not the administration) and they were elected to oversee and approve all expenditures, tax levies and financial obligations that will impact our pocketbooks. Most importantly they were elected to evaluate and approve all school programs and do what is best for our children.  Don't be afraid to publicly remind the board members of their obligations and remind them that as they do their jobs, they must also be fully transparent and hold Dr. White accountable.  

Finally, we want to thank all of our readers who have supported this blog and empowered us to continue to speak out.  Now it's your turn! 

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Comment of the Day -- If the D181 Administration Thinks All Voters Will Be Willing to Pay Higher Property Taxes to Build a New School, Then They Better Stop the Wasteful Spending of our Existing Tax Dollars

This morning we received the comment below, which we have decided to post as Comment of the Day because it expresses our (the bloggers') sentiments to a tee:

Anonymous said...
I would like to know what on earth the administration did for a team building event that cost $15,000? And why are tax payers paying $1100 for flights and $1500 for hotel reservations for 2 teachers? Who is expensing food at the airport? We're paying to check luggage? $500 for hotel stay for TASH conference? I could go on and on and on about these expenses. There needs to be a major crack down on the free for all spending mentality that is taking place here. Potbelly, Dunkin Donuts, Corner Bakery.....cut it!! And you want to build a new school? Stop spending money on unnecessary things!! This is tax payer money!!

Thursday, August 6, 2015

Serious Procedural and Logistical Problems Exist with the Assistant Superintendent of Learning "Hire"

Apparently Superintendent White has spoken, although in our opinion, he has spoken out of turn. Yesterday afternoon, he sent out the following email to all D181 parents and staff announcing the imminent hiring of the new Assistant Superintendent of Learning (Curriculum and Instruction): 

"Dear District 181 Families and Staff,
I am writing to share the news that I am recommending the employment of Dr. Marcia Tornatore as Interim Assistant Superintendent of Learning (Curriculum and Instruction). Dr. Tornatore will begin work in the District on August 6, and will be officially presented for hire during the Board of Education's next meeting on August 17.

Dr. Tornatore will work in partnership with Assistant Superintendent of Learning (Pupil Services) Dr. Kurt Schneider. Dr. Tornatore is a retired school administrator and so can work only 100 days in the position due to Teachers' Retirement System limitations. She will be focusing on project-based tasks that are important to a successful start for the school year, so we anticipate she will be with us every workday through September. We will then determine an appropriate schedule for the remainder of the first semester so that we don't exceed the 100-day limit. Some of those project-based roles that Dr. Tornatore will lead include management of student and staff resources, development of an action plan to adjust the current curriculum renewal cycle, and special oversight of math as new resources are being implemented in all grade levels for 2015-16.

In regard to her background, Dr. Tornatore holds a Bachelor's degree in Elementary Education from Rhode Island College, a Master's degree in Education (with emphasis on Reading) from the University of North Florida, and a doctorate in Education (Curriculum and Instruction) from the University of Oregon. She has worked in education since 1975, most recently serving as Superintendent of Itasca School District 10. She retired from District 10 in June of this year.

Dr. Tornatore brings a wealth of experience at all levels of administration and teaching. She has done curriculum design, development and implementation of a gifted education program for all levels of students, and has worked with Early Childhood Education. Her qualifications and background will be a great asset to the District.

We worked with the search firm BWP and Associates to assist in finding qualified candidates. They did an excellent job in identifying highly talented individuals, and I anticipate working with them again to post the position as a permanent role, with that person likely beginning in the 2016-17 school year.

I appreciate your taking a moment to read this news. I hope your family is enjoying the summer!


The purpose of today's post is not to address the specific candidate's qualifications (although we may choose to at a later date after we gather more information). Rather, the purpose of the post is to flag the issues we have with Dr. White's announcement and express our dismay at what we perceive to be his arrogance toward and disrespect of the BOE's authority.  

Unless there has been a full on violation of the Open Meetings Act, it is impossible that the BOE has met to have a single discussion about this candidate. The last BOE meeting was in July, before the job description (lackluster as it was) was posted on the D181 and BWP and Associates websites.  There have been no special board meetings called since then and therefore no legal opportunity for Dr. White to have had any discussions with the board regarding this candidate's qualifications, past experience in the area of curriculum, characteristics and ability to understand and be successful in our community, what her salary should be, what her job description is (since NONE has actually been posted anywhere yet), what the implication of the "100 day limitation" means for our students and teachers, and most importantly, allow for each board member to ask questions and have a meaningful discussion prior to the all important vote approving or not approving the hire.

We will address each one of these points briefly today and then ask our readers to sound off!

1.  Has there been an Open Meetings Act Violation?  Since there has been no publicly noticed meeting (special and/or executive in nature) since Dr. White's announcement that he was going to be hiring a new Assistant Superintendent of Learning (Curriculum and Instruction), the first questions to be asked are have the BOE members discussed this candidacy, has Dr. White polled them to see if they will vote to approve the hire and if so, when did these discussions take place?  Any of these discussions would not have been publicly noticed, as required by the Open Meetings Act, therefore, would have been yet another violation of the Open Meetings Act by the D181 BOE, and another action taken outside of the "sunshine and transparency" required of this public body.  

2.  Assuming that no OMA violation has taken place, because we would be extremely disappointed (especially in our new BOE members) if this had been allowed to happen, Dr. White's announcement that this candidate is starting her job TODAY (8/6) and that she will be "officially presented for hire" during the August 17 BOE meeting (almost two weeks from now), is extremely concerning as it reflects an undeserved cockiness by the superintendent and utter disrespect for the proper procedure he should be following.  While true that the BOE typically votes to approve all superintendent recommended hires, after the utter debacle D181 has been experiencing in the Learning Department and the harm many of our students have suffered at the hands of the experimenting-social justice at all cost-curriculum expert wannabe administrators, we would have expected Dr. White to actually present this candidate to the FULL board for meaningful (not phony) consideration and discussion and allow each and every board member to ask any question(s) they might legitimately have BEFORE voting to approve her.  If there is one thing our community, the BOE and Dr. White should have learned over the last three years, the board members cannot simply serve as RUBBER STAMPS to Dr. White's (or any superintendent's) recommended hires.  By allowing this candidate to start work today, Dr. White assumes her hire is a given...a slam dunk...a done deal.  Perhaps that will be true, especially now that he has manipulated the situation and set it up to make any possible questioning board member look like a dissenter who doesn't trust him, but the bottom line is that he shouldn't have done this.  Shame on Dr. White!

3.  The "100 day limitation" is a BIG PROBLEM!  Since this candidate is retired and collecting an Illinois pension, under Illinois law, she cannot work more than 100 days per year, or she will forfeit her pension.  The Assistant Superintendent position is a year long position, which means a full time administrator' contract would be for between 240 and 260 work days long.  Dr. White's announcement points out that the candidate will work full time through September, which means that by October 1, she will have worked 39 out of the 100 days, or more than 1/3 of her allowed days and there will still be more than 8 months of school left in the academic year and 10 months left on her contract (assuming she is given a one year contract).  So that means that starting in October, over the 8 months remaining in the school year, at most she can work 7.6 days per month, OR over the 10 months left in her year long contract, she can only work 6.1 days per month. Is this REALY the best situation that Dr. White could come up with to solve the curriculum nightmare our district's children have been experiencing for four years?  Isn't the 100 day cap an issue that he should have FIRST presented to the BOE for discussion BEFORE he announced the candidate's imminent hire?  

4.  Dr. White states that the candidate will focus on "project-based tasks."  For us this means that she is not being hired to RUN the Curriculum and Instruction portion of the Department of Learning, come in and assess the department and implement necessary changes to get our children out of the mess created over the last 3 years.   To us it means that she has no independence -- and certainly NO TIME -- to evaluate and address all of the issues that still exist. She is simply being hired to complete assignments given to her by someone.  Who is that someone?  Dr. White?  Dr. Schneider?  (What the heck does Dr. White actually mean when he says she will be "working in partnership" with Schneider?) Again, her "job description," role and responsibilities should ALL have been discussed in PUBLIC (since those are not specific to any individual candidate, but are applicable to the job itself and therefore must be discussed in open session) by the BOE BEFORE Dr. White announced that she was starting her job today.  

5. Finally, since she is starting work today, the candidate must have agreed on a salary that she will be paid.  Typically, interims are paid a daily rate.  For example former D181 Interim Superintendent Dr. Sabatino,  was paid $800/day.  See: (

So what will this candidate be paid? But more importantly, shouldn't the BOE have been consulted on, discussed and approved her salary BEFORE she started work?  Again, when (if at all) did this take place?  Was there an Open Meetings Act Violation or is this the superintendent overstepping his authority by circumventing BOE approval? 


There are way too many red flags raised by the way this "hire" is proceeding to give us, the bloggers, any confidence in Dr. White's recommendation. There is absolutely nothing that would have prevented him from calling and publicly noticing a Special BOE meeting to allow the BOE to discuss the candidate. Weren't at least four BOE members available? That's all it would have taken to have a quorum. If not, then he should have waited until they were available and noticed up a meeting giving the community the legally required 48 hours notice. While we understand his desire to get someone in place, his rapid fire approach and complete disregard toward the BOE in soliciting their questions or discussion about the candidate, her job responsibilities and her salary is (in our opinion) unacceptable.

So Sound Off!

Monday, August 3, 2015

Two Small, But Significant Acts of Transparency -- Board Committee Agendas Posted on Board Docs

Happy August Everyone!  With D181 schools starting in less than one month (and D86 high schools starting in two weeks -- that's right folks), the Board of Education is getting back to work this month, after a brief summer hiatus from regular meetings. Four meetings are scheduled this month that we know of -- two regular business meetings, a Facilities Committee meeting and a Learning Committee meeting.  The dates, times and locations are as follows:

Tuesday, 8/4 -- Facilities Committee Meeting, Administration Center, 9 to 11 a.m.
Wednesday, 8/5 -- Learning Committee Meeting, Administration Center, 6 p.m.
Monday, 8/17 -- Regular Business Meeting, Walker School, 7 p.m.
Monday, 8/31 -- Regular Business Meeting, Walker School, 7 p.m.

We want to point out a few things that we believe while small, are significant.

1.  The Administration Center moved out of Elm School this summer and into leased space in the office building directly behind the PNC Bank building (which is across from the Clarendon Hills Jewel) at the Holmes Avenue/55th Street intersection.  The official address is 115 W. 55th Street, Clarendon Hills.  This location is where the committee meetings are scheduled to take place.

2.  According to the BOE meeting calendar of meetings, all Regular and Committee of the Whole meetings will now take place at Walker School.  Click to open Meeting Calendar.  No more rotation between schools.  It will be interesting to see if the community embraces this change, since years ago, the locations were static at Hinsdale Middle School, the community complained that for the sake of convenience to parents, meetings should rotate through all the schools.   We personally don't think this change matters, since attendance at board meetings has been relatively light since that change (except during crisis periods -- mold-gate, ALP/LFA/Learning for none and Math Curriculum discussions), but we certainly hope the administration and BOE review this change in a few months and seek parent feedback.

3.  Finally, it looks like Board Committee meeting agendas are now going to be posted on Board Docs prior to meetings.  This is a small but significant act of transparency!  Since the new BOE, under Mridu Garg's presidency, decided to regain control over the committees by changing their structure from Superintendent to BOE run committees, the meeting agendas will now be noticed up pursuant to the Open Meetings Act rules and 48 hours notice must be posted at the location of the meetings and on the D181 website.  This week's two committee meetings were posted on Board Docs and their agendas can be accessed at:

Click to open Facilities Committee Meeting Agenda.
Click to open Learning Committee Meeting Agenda.

You will notice that public comment will also be allowed at these meetings, a change from when they were run as Superintendent's committees.  Another small but significant act of transparency!  We hope that D181 has a trifecta of transparency and decides to audio-tape and post Podcasts of all committee meetings on the D181 website, just as it does for the regular BOE meetings.  We have pointed out before that D86 does this for ALL meetings (actually they film and post the video-tapes, which is even more insightful and transparent), so if they can do it, so can D181.  We hope the new BOE members are reading this blog and will decide as a full board to have all meetings audio-taped and posted.


We encourage all D181 parents and taxpayers to begin attending all of these meetings because critically important issues and decisions are on the horizon that will impact all D181 students, teachers, parents and taxpayers.  They include:

1.  The hiring of a new Assistant Superintendent of Learning (Curriculum and Instruction). As we previously announced, this summer half of Dr. Schneider's responsibilities were removed and he will no longer serve as the sole Assistant Superintendent of Learning, rather his new title will be Assistant Superintendent of Learning (Pupil Personnel Services). Dr. White must now identify and recommend the hiring of a new Assistant Superintendent who will oversee the curriculum for the regular and "unique/advanced/gifted" learners. After four years of utter chaos and harm to many of our youngest learners, Dr. White better get this recommendation right. Our children can ill-afford another year of experimentation, lack of performance data analysis or poor administrative oversight. We are cautiously optimistic that since he made the decision to split the Assistant Superintendent of Learning position into two, that he recognizes the critical nature of this next administrative hire. We will be waiting, watching and hopefully soon reporting on who the new administrator will be, so stay tuned.....

2.  Last Spring, the new BOE decided it was time to change the "learning for all/learning for none" nature of the curriculum to one that once again required more placement criteria for automatic admission to advanced learning classes. There has been push back from some parents who are not pleased with the new "cut-offs." We, the blogger, believe that the "opt-in at one's request" option harmed the curriculum, since as teachers complained, it forced some of them to slow down or water down the curriculum.  However, we cannot forget that the old system that Dr. Schneider and company trashed when the ALP/LFA/Learning for none curriculum model was rolled out four years ago, also had significant faults since it was rigid and did not allow students to appeal placement decisions if they did not meet the cut-off scores to place into higher level classes.  The test this year will be whether or not there is flexibility and a legitimate appeals process to address student, parent and teacher concerns of students who do not place into the curricular level they believe they should be in. Again, we will watch this issue carefully over the next year and report on any discussions that take place, so stay tuned.....

3.  What direction will be taken regarding Technology in D181 this year?  Last Spring, Ian Jukes was hired to give some technology presentations to parents and teacher and after "Phase I" of his contract, the community is still waiting for his report and recommendations AND a decision on whether or not the district (and taxpayers) will proceed and pay him for Phase II.  When will the BOE and community see the report/recommendations and when will the BOE make the decision on Phase II?  It appears that the Learning Committee may be discussing the Technology initiative at the 8/5 meeting, so stay tuned for updates....

4.  Important Facilities issues will also be addressed this year:

a.  First off, anyone who has driven past Hinsdale Middle School can see that parts of the parking lot adjacent to the portable classrooms have been blocked off, and we assume it is to mark the spot where additional portables are to be installed.  The only question is why with less than three weeks until teachers report back to school (8/19/15) hasn't more work taken place and WHERE ARE THE PORTABLES? (Click to open 2015-2016 school calendar.) The district has had all summer to get the portables installed and ready to ease the overcrowding at HMS. Will the new portables be ready for the teachers to move their supplies in and for the students to learn in on 8/26, the first student attendance day? Hopefully this issue will be addressed at both the 8/4 Facilities Committee and the 8/17 BOE meeting. If this work isn't completed on time, will anyone be held accountable, or will this be another example of work not getting done or not getting done right with no negative consequences, except to our teachers and students? Cross your fingers that the work gets done and stay tuned for updates.....

b.  The Referendum -- Tentatively slated (per late Spring BOE meeting discussion) for a public vote on March 16, 2016 election is a Capital Referendum to raise tax money to pay for either a new Hinsdale Middle School, a renovated and expanded Hinsdale Middle School, a possible new administrative center, a possible new professional development center (REALLY??), and possible capital improvements to other schools. Critical decisions will need to be made by both the Facilities Committee and the full BOE on the scope of the referendum and the date it will officially be put on the ballot. All D181 taxpayers must closely monitor the discussions on the Referendum and become knowledgeable about the proposed plans, and more importantly how the costs will impact our pocket-books. So stay tuned for updates.....

After last night's storms, we appreciate the sunshine -- both in the weather and from the BOE. We end the late summer post by applauding the BOE for its small but significant acts of transparency.  Communication and engagement with the community -- students, parents, teachers and all taxpayers -- are necessary steps the BOE must take to regain the trust that was eroded under the Turek led BOE. We hope the new (and improved) BOE continues down this path, and next tackles the important task of accountability.

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

"Emperor's New Clothes" Round Two. Once again, Parents and Taxpayers are Being Played as Fools.

It is time for some reflections.  First, we are thankful.  We are thankful to our readers who over the last two years have made this blog viable and encouraged us to continue our quest for transparency in D181.  Last week we achieved a landmark when we exceeded 500,000 hits on this blog.  It may not seem like a lot of hits to other bloggers, but to us it was validation that what we have been doing -- creating a forum of true transparency and discussion -- has been worth it.

Having said that, our second reflection is not so positive.  Despite over two years of presenting and discussing facts and data, "unswirling" fiction about programs such as Advanced Learning/Learning for All/Learning for None, and exposing the "Emperors New Clothes" for what they were -- rather what they were not -- we have come to the sad realization that not much has changed in the "Castle" -- the D181 Central Office Administration.  Despite a change in the "ruler," there continues to be spin, lack of transparency, and in our opinion more invisible clothing being manufactured and paraded about town for "all to see."  Sadly, the monarchy still believes that D181 parents, taxpayers and residents are idiots who will not see the latest administrative antics for what they are and how they may continue to hurt our children's education.

The latest "fiction" (in our opinion) comes in the form of the recent announcement that the Central Office is going to once again be reorganized, the Department of Learning split back into two distinct sub-departments -- 1. Curriculum and Instruction and 2) Pupil Personnel Services (predominantly Special education, plus ELL).  We believe that despite the "announcement," D181's ruler is not taking the necessary steps to effect meaningful and much needed change in the Department of Learning.  To fully understand how we have come to this conclusion, let us review some history.

A Historical Primer -- The Department of "Learning" -- The Last Seven Years

  • The last time D181 had a dedicated, experienced expert in the field of curriculum and instruction to serve as the Assistant Superintendent of Learning was seven years ago, under former Superintendent Tenbusch.  
  • Tenbusch's brief, eleven month tenure in our district was wrought with administrative turnover, as the majority of administrators hired by former Superintendent Mary Curley were essentially shown the door by a BOE that many community members believe desired to get rid of all central administrators she had hired.  
  • When Tenbusch also "suddenly" resigned, Dr. Janet Stutz was hired to run the Department of Learning (but not the Department of Special Education) by Associate Superintendent Mary Ticknor. (The BOE had promoted Ms. Ticknor from Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources, to essentially run the district that summer during the search for an interim superintendent.)  Dr. Stutz did not have a background or experience as a Curriculum Administrator, rather came to D181 as a former principal and background in facilities. 
  • Despite much public criticism about the curriculum, testing and placement criteria changes Dr, Stutz implemented, she managed to serve as the Assistant Superintendent for nearly five years, before leaving two years ago to become a superintendent elsewhere, (Preceding her departure was Ms. Ticknor, who also left to become a superintendent in another district after continuing in her role as Associate Superintendent during the two years that Dr. Robert Sabatino was hired to serve as Interim Superintendent. Five years ago, Dr. Schuster was hired as Superintendent. She left in May 2014 and Dr. White was hired.)
  • Replacing Stutz was Kevin Russell, who within one year was double promoted by Schuster, first from Walker School principal to Director of Assessment during Stutz's last year, and then to Assistant Superintendent of Learning. Russell departed one year ago to also become a superintendent in another district,  When he left, his position as Assistant Superintendent of Learning (Curriculum and Instruction) was merged with Dr. Schneider's position of Assistant Superintendent of Learning (PPS), who became the sole Assistant Superintendent of Learning.
  •  Recall that Dr. Schneider was originally hired in July 2012 to serve as the Assistant Superintendent of PPS (Special Education) after former Assistant Superintendent of PPS, Pam Kazee, was hired by a high school district.  As we have written about extensively on this blog, Dr. Schneider's role as the head Special Education administrator quickly morphed into an expanded role where he (in our opinion) was allowed to implement his social justice theories and create the Advanced Learning/Learning For All/Acceleration for all then acceleration for none/One Size Fits All instructional model. When Russell left, Scheider was officially given ALL of the curriculum oversight responsibilities byWhite who came on board right after Russell left.  
  • During the last year, we the bloggers and many brave parents and even some teachers, have called out the Department of Learning, exposing quite a few problems including  lack of administrative experience and training in the various Department of Learning positions, lack of data analysis and implementation of experimental programs that were driven by a social justice agenda that has no place in our district and has not been proven to serve high achieving, gifted, advanced, "unique" or talented students.

Dr. White's Announcement to Reorganize the Central Administrative Office, Specifically the Department of Learning -- Fact or Fiction?

Our last three posts have focused on the Dr. White's announcement that he has decided to split the Department of Learning back into two distinct sections, 1.  Curriculum and Instruction and 2. PPS (special education focused services) and move Dr. Schneider back into only serving as the Assistant Superintendent of Learning (PPS), rather than overseeing the entire department.

While we have commended Dr. White's decision to do this, we must now question how sincere he actually is going to be in implementing this much needed curriculum leadership change.

We, along with many of our readers who have submitted comments, have already questioned the almost covert manner in which this announcement was made -- in the dead of summer, first going only to teachers and not parents or community members, then only getting a short blurb by Dr. White during the July 13th "special board meeting" and having his announcement suggest that Scheider will still be involved in non-SPED related curriculum and instruction decisions.  One informed parent has already written to White reminding him that the district requires the head of Special Education services to be 100% dedicated to that position, yet White refuses to acknowledge this requirement.  Why?  

But as with the past experiences with the "Emperor's new clothes" we now believe that the claim that White is seeking to hire someone to serve as Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction because he has "listen[ed][ to our community's needs and desires for our schools and implement[ed] the changes that will most effectively help us achieve our mission of providing an environment of educational excellence for each student," may be more spin and fiction.  Why do we say this?

Clearly, after years of having non-qualified, experienced, trained curriculum administrators running the Department of Learning with the end result being that our children have lost years of getting to participate and experience a proven, highest quality instructional model that truly meets the needs of each learner, it should be obvious that what the district needs is a full time, experienced, qualified, proven curriculum administrator with an expertise in the field.  D181 does not need a part time, retired, generic administrator to step into this role, or an untested, inexperienced, first timer, learn on the job employee.  Nor does D181 need a person with a desire to experiment on our children to "vet" unproven educational theories.  A recognition of what is needed would result in the crafting of a JOB DESCRIPTION with stated criteria of education, work experience and the specifics of the day to day responsibilities that the new Assistant Superintendent of Learning (Curriculum and Instruction) will be responsible for.

Ahem.  Double ahem.  So why do we only have White's empty words and representations and NOTHING else to prove that D181 is actually undertaking a legitimate search for the best qualified curriculum administrator our tax dollars can afford?  There is NOTHING of substance to prove that a legitimate job search is underway to identify, vet, interview and consider a pool of qualified candidates with curriculum expertise.  There is NOTHING to prove that White's plans to hire someone new are nothing more than a fiction that will end in some internal promotion or external hire of another of White's former employees or connections (who may or may not be qualified for the role).

Why do we say this?  We have done some research on the process D181 is following to hire a new Assistant Superintendent of Learning (Curriculum and Instruction).  The results are most disturbing and make us really wonder just what the heck is going on in White's head?

First we checked the D181 website to see if a Job Vacancy had been posted.  On first glance we found nothing.  We looked under the D181 Department of Human Resources Job Vacancy link: Expecting that an Assistant Superintendent position would be listed under "Administration" we were surprised to find that only ONE vacancy was listed and that was for a Pupil Services Administrator (at the building level).  That position was complete with a detailed job description -- click to open.

But then we noticed the second category of job vacancies called "Administrative District Office," and we thought "Ahah! That is where the Assistant Superintendent position will be listed."  So we clicked to open the ONE vacancy listed and were once again surprised that it wasn't there, rather the only Central Administrative position listed was that of "Director of Pupil Services," a position that has been posted since 4/23/2105.  That position was complete with a detailed job description -- click to open.

No other job vacancy is posted under this category.  Now we don't know about you, but common sense dictates that if we were a Curriculum Administrator hunting for a new job and came upon the D181 website, we wouldn't go any further than looking at these two categories to see if a Central Administrative position was available.  Nope, we would move on to another district's website.
We most certainly wouldn't keep clicking beyond the next category listed -- "Elementary School Teaching" (which obviously wouldn't apply to an experienced curriculum administrator's job search for a new administrative position) -- and then click on a "new category (which we have NEVER before seen on the Job Vacancy link) called "Interim."

But because we the bloggers were hunting for the job vacancy posting, we did click on "Interim" and low and behold, we found it!  Sort of....

If you click on the following link -- -- you will open a job description for a position called "Interim Assistant Superintendent of Learning." 

We have copied the text of this job posting below:

Interim Assistant Superintendent of LearningJobID: 924 
Position Type:

Email To A Friend
Print Version 
Closing Date:

Until filled
  Interim/Assistant Superintendent
Date Posted:
  District Office
Date Available:
For information about this job, please visit

We found this job posting to be quite fascinating in what it doesn't
 say.  Sure, it is called Assistant Superintendent of Learning, but it also has "Interim" as part of the title, suggesting that no attempt is being made right now to hire a PERMANENT administrator.  Further, there is absolutely NO JOB DESCRIPTION attached, so even if found by a Curriculum Administrator searching for a new job, there would be nothing to indicate that this is a position focused on Curriculum and Instruction, or give any clue as to the educational or experience requirements or what the job responsibilities entail. All that is referenced is to visit the website of an Educational Search Firm called BWP Associates, but no active link is included.

So we continued out search for more information on this MOST IMPORTANT JOB VACANCY in D181 by going to BWP's website, which we are providing to you as an active link:

When you click on that link, you don't pull up the job description, rather you only open their website. To find the D181 Job description you have to go hunting, first by clicking on their link

called Searches in Progress (which we are also providing to you as a live link).  That opens up a list of job searches they are currently running and the 6th of 7 searches listed is for D181:  We have copied the text of their listing below:

Hinsdale School District 181 - Illinois

Seeking an Interim Assistant Superintendent for Learning - 2015-16 School Year
View information on community and position
Status:  In Progress

Embedded in this brief blurb was an active link called "View Information on Community and Position."  So we naturally assumed by clicking on the link we would FINALLY see a detailed job description.  Alas, we did not.  Click on it for yourself and you will see that all it shows is the following information:

Hinsdale School District 181 



Interim Assistant Superintendent Vacancy 
2015-16 School Year 

Hinsdale School District 181 is seeking an interim Assistant Superintendent for Learning for the 2015-16 school year. This position is available immediately and is open to someone interested in full time or a retired administrator working under the 100-day TRS cap. Resumes will be reviewed upon receipt by Dr. Anne Noland and Dr. Mark Friedman. 
BWP and Associates, Ltd.
 872 South Milwaukee Avenue, #221 
Libertyville, Illinois 60048 
Please send a current resume and letter of interest to: 
Dr. Mark Friedman 847-975-8393 
Dr. Anne Noland 630-624-3336 
An Equal Opportunity Employer

NO JOB DESCRIPTION!!!  Nothing, nada, zippo!  O.k.  Now we were mad!  How can it be BOTH the district and the search firm have nothing of substance posted on their websites? For each of the other six open searches it is conducting, BWP  has live links to very detailed job descriptions:  Click to open detailed job descriptions for Search 1Search 2Search 3Search 4Search 5 and Search 7.

So why doesn't BWP have a description that fully explains the job and its qualifications?  What 
little is posted establishes that Dr. White is willing to hire a retired administrator who can only work a maximum of 100 days under the TRS cap.  Really?  Is this what our children really need to fill the "void" Dr. White has thankfully created by cutting Schneider's job in half?  Or is this whole "job search" nothing more than fiction, allowing White to claim later that no one was interested in the job, therefore Schneider needs to re-assume his former job title?  Or will this fiction allow White to bring his own "candidate" (internal or external) forward after claiming that the BWP search failed to yield any other candidates?

Is the process that is currently underway to hire a new Assistant Superintendent of Learning (Curriculum and Instruction) really the best effort by a district of our caliber or a search firm of BWP's caliber?  We think not, especially with the high salaries our administrators are paid or the high fees that we expect BWP is collecting to conduct this "search."

Readers, there is something seriously fishy about what is going down.  We can go on and on about the ramifications of what we have uncovered, but frankly, we are tired.  Tired of all the spin, tired of all the games, tired of the assumption by the current central office administrator in charge that we are ignorant, naive parents and taxpayers who are willing to play dumb, pretend to see things that do not really exist, and are idiots.  We most certainly are not, but after two years of exposing the problems and harm being caused to our children, we are just about ready to walk away and throw in the towel. It really is up to the new School Board to fix this mess, because it is plain as day that we cannot trust our administrative leaders to do it.