Saturday, June 14, 2014

Appointments of Parents to the Superintendent's Learning Committee Raise Questions of Fairness

Last Friday, Dr. White emailed parents who had applied to serve on the Superintendent's Learning Committee.  Nine of 28 parents who applied for the position received good news. The rest learned they had not been selected. A link to the D181 Website was included in the letter that lists the names of the parents, board members and central administrators who were selected, as well as information on the purpose of the committee. Names of principals and teachers who will serve on the committee have not yet been released to the public.

LINK to Learning Committee:
http://www.d181.org/resources/committees/superintendents-learning-committee/index.aspx

At the end of this post, we have copied the comments we received this weekend regarding this committee.  In addition, we would like to make the following observations:

-- It is ironic that Board Member Yaeger is serving on this committee instead of Mr. Heneghan who we believe previously expressed an interest in serving on it.  Mr. Yaeger currently serves on the Finance Committee and everyone is well aware of his poor attendance record in serving on that one.  If Mr. Yaeger intends to attend 100% of these meetings, then by all means, he should stay on the committee.  But if he is not going to make this committee a priority, then he should step off now before it begins its important work.

-- We recognize the names of several individuals who have been appointed to the committee.  We want to recognize two of them and commend the administration for selecting Leslie Gray and Susan Owens, who have shown a real awareness of the curriculum issues over the last couple of years.  They have been vocal advocates for all of our children and critics (at times) of the work done by the Central Administration and the Learning for All Plan.  We know they will be committed to ensuring that the recommendations that the Learning Committee makes are reasoned, data driven and will not cause further harm to our students, but hope that they will not hesitate to speak out publicly in opposition if they believe the best interests of all students are not being met by the committee.

-- We also are aware of the names of over five community members (who we will not name publicly) who applied to serve on this committee in a timely manner. They submitted their application by the first deadline and are all qualified to serve on the committee.  Moreover, they represented multiple schools in the district -- Walker, Prospect, Oak, Lane, Madison, CHMS.  They have attended board meetings on a regular basis, have made public comments or submitted letters and research to the board and administration to back up concerns they have raised over the last two years regarding the Learning for All Plan.  At least two of these parents are former or current teachers (from other school districts).  They have been actively involved in PTO committees at their schools either currently or in the past and they are all highly respected.  YET THEY WERE ALL REJECTED FROM SERVING ON THIS COMMITTEE.

-- We do not know how many of the "chosen" parents submitted their applications prior to the initial deadline set by Dr. Schuster, but we do know that the parents we reference above all did and would have fulfilled their obligations and duty to serve on this committee in a fair, informed and committed fashion, would have each represented a different school, and yet the administration turned them all down and kept extending the deadline until there was a larger pool of applicants.

WE CRY FOUL!

The extensions of time to submit applications were unfair to these parents who not only have proven their commitment in the past to all of the D181 students, but jumped through all of the necessary hoops to serve on this committee and did so without prodding from the administration after the initial deadline was extended.  We are not criticizing any of the parents who have been selected because they too submitted applications (and some may have before the first deadline was extended), and we assume they would not have done so if they didn't have a real interest in serving.  But we do criticize the administration because based upon their rejection of parents that they or certain BOE members have characterized as "naysayers," it makes us question when the applications of the appointees were received, and whether anyone from the administration contacted them and asked them to submit applications.  We are sure we will never know the answer to the latter question, but if the administration wants to be transparent, it should release the names of the 28 applicants and the dates when they submitted their applications.  It should also release the applications they submitted so the community will know their backgrounds and qualifications to serve on this committee.  The administration should also release the names/schools of the teachers and principals who will be on the committee.  It is concerning that their names have not been identified yet.

While they may not be allowed to participate in the committee meetings,  any parent, including those  who applied and were not selected, should also be allowed to attend and "observe" the committee meetings, in order to stay informed as to the work it is doing.  Or, as an alternative, the committee meetings should be videotaped as are all committee meetings at the high school district -- D86, or audio-taped, and posted on the D181 website.  If Dr. White wants to be completely transparent and regain the trust he may have already lost from some of the disappointed parents, he should allow one of these options, since after all, this is a SUPERINTENDENT'S committee and he can "make the rules."
____________________________________________


PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED COMMENTS RE:  PARENT APPOINTMENTS TO THE LEARNING COMMITTEE:



Jill Quinones said...
Hopefully not a tarnish on the great start, but decisions on who was selected for Superintendent Learning Committee went out today. I was not selected, but would be curious of anyone else who read the blog was or knows someone who was. The letter, of course, did not list who comprises the Committee - so much for transparency.
June 13, 2014 at 10:15 AM

Blogger jay_wick said...
Jill:

No nod for me either.

Heard from another high informed, well qualified parent that she was not selected.

Does make one speculate as to the criteria for inclusion...
June 13, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...
My theory is that parents who were chosen have children affected by the math pilot. I was not selected either. If this is the case, then the email should have stated this.
June 13, 2014 at 3:15 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Maybe I've suffered from too much of the hi-jinx this BOE has already put of us through or maybe my "evil angel" has gotten the better of me but I'll say it anyhow -- the parents chosen are probably those with a propensity toward:

A) gullibility

B) not showing up

C) already advocating for new facilities

Have a delightful summer...
June 13, 2014 at 5:30 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Parent members of learning committee were posted on the website. A link to the info was included in the ding letter.
June 13, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Here's the link -- I forgot to include it:

http://www.d181.org/resources/committees/superintendents-learning-committee/index.aspx
June 13, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Wow to the poster who thinks the people chosen for the committee are gullible, don't show up and advocates for new facilities. Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps many highly qualified people put in applications? Maybe the criteria was to have an open mind and not be judgmental. Why insult your fellow parents who most likely share many of the same concerns you have? Perhaps you should withhold judgement until you have something tangible to criticize. Don't blame your sour grapes on BOE hi-jinx. I thought one of the tenets of this blog was to not attack people, especially fellow parents who haven't done anything to deserve it, other than get chosen for a committee. I thought the blog monitors were watching for this type of attack.
June 13, 2014 at 6:54 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...
I agree 6:54. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Maybe some of the parents not chosen (not you, Jill) have shown an inability to listen and/or be respectful of others and/or consider viewpoints other than their own which prevented their selection. Just because a parent doesn't feel comfortable speaking publicly at a meeting or agree with everything the bloggers have to say, doesn't mean they are gullible, uninformed or uninvolved. It is that sort of condescending and egocentric attitude that has caused so many problems for everyone involved with these issues. Come on people, give this a chance to work and stop waiting to pounce on every little thing.
June 13, 2014 at 7:57 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Surely none of the current members of the board of education / staff would be so thin skinned as to pass over well qualified parents that might be critical of prior actions.

It will be interesting to see how the district level staffing decisions to replace departed employees reflect on Dr. White's approach to finding personnel that share his views / bring a diversity of experience to their role.

It is nice that the web page for the learning committee includes the full list of parents selected; that information is not published for the other superintendent's committees (facilities, finance) maybe not a major sea change but at least a step in the right direction.
June 13, 2014 at 9:34 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...
I have been very critical for many years and I was chosen. I really believe it has more to do with attaining a variety of school representation, age of children and academic ability/needs of children than anything. And they may be looking for fresh and different perspectives, or to hear from new parents, as well. I agree, though, that if some of the parents haven't been involved with these issues, they will have a steep learning curve which, hopefully they are willing to take on. I don't believe they would choose a teacher from another school district, Jill. And let's not forget, parents represent a minority role on this committee. We are not decision makers and that is as it should be.
June 14, 2014 at 6:17 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...
I have been very outspoken and I was included. I do feel badly that I was chosen and so manly highly qualified parents were not. I wish more parents could have been included.
June 14, 2014 at 1:28 PM



37 comments:

Anonymous said...

You can bet that the list of those selected to serve on this committee went through final approval under the watchful eyes of Schneider, Russell, Benaitis and Igoe. Can't have the most outspoken "naysayers" on this committee, right, Department of Learning? Even though they are days away from leaving their administrative command posts, Russell and Igoe don't want any negativity from parents further tarnishing their failed attempt, aka Learning for All. Plain and simple. Their hands are in the cookie jar.

Anonymous said...

Well said 6:44 p.m. And let's not forget that Dr. Schuster was still (and may still be) working as Co-Superintendent last week, so her hands were probably also deep into the jar....

Anonymous said...

The whole premise of an unpaid, parent volunteer being required to submit a formal resume AND be "selected" by an outgoing administrator is ridiculous. It reflects very poorly upon Dr. White for allowing this to occur. When will the biased, unfair treatment by the unwanted former superintendent end?

What gives only certain members of the community, whose resumes and educations the rest of us will never see, the right to determine MY child's education? Is this how our regular education students will be treated from now on? I hope the first thing Dr. White does when Renee leaves is to allow all of the applicants in. I understand that many parents wanted to be informed about he curricum and pilots, but only allowing a select few in for the discussion is discrimation at its worst. What were the criterion, by the way, hmmm? And who exactly got to play God and decide whose opinions counted and whose didn't?

The elitist attitude of our administration and their refusal to listen to parents whose ideas do not correspond with their own is disgraceful. To poster 6:54, who claims that "maybe the criterion was for the person to have an 'open mind' and not to be judgemental", do you even realize how illogical what you have just said is? If the selection committee themselves had open minds, THEY would have allowed EVERYONE in. They would not have cut the people who applied by the 1st deadline, only to extend the deadline for weeks so that more of their own could apply. The parents who applied on time followed the rules, yet once again, Dr. Schuster, Dr. Schneider, and Dr. Russell bent the rules to suit themselves. D181 is not a sorority! It is a public school and ALL parents have an equal right to participate. If not, scrap the committee.

I am certain that many qualified and caring people were selected for the committee, but why does the district feel that black balling the other educated and knowledgable applicants will make our community a better place? Is this what SELAS means to our district - exclude anyone with whom you don't agree and pretend they don't exist? Are these the procedures that our middle and elementary schools employ when deciding which children make student council, participate in talent shows and join sports teams? I am very disappointed by the administrations' lack of empathy and their one sided social skills. So much for "inclusion".

I hoped that our school district would have been able to demonstrate more inclusive and welcoming tactics in creating a curriculum committee. Not behave like a group of mean girls or spiteful fraternity brothers.

Hopefully Dr. White will not allow D181 to continue to allow our district to exclude and marginalize parents the way Renee Schister has. And hopefully, the committee will have an ISBE representative available to consult with the parents to help these laypeople make informed, educated decisions for our children.

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that no one complained about the committee prior to the member selection being made, only after certain applicants were excluded. If they had been chosen, would those who are complaining about bias and unfair treatment have declined participation? How is this different than the way the Village of Hinsdale is run with its many volunteer run advisory committees? It is naïve to say that "everyone" should always be able to participate in everything. It doesn't happen anywhere. And the parents on the committee are not determining anything for any student, they are just 9 voices to be considered among, hopefully, every other parent who takes the time to make his/her opinion known.

There are two ways to look at the committee: 1. As the poster at 9:48 views it, or, 2. As a sincere attempt to elicit parent input (not decision-making)about issues impacting our district. District committees such as this are not new and, in various forms, have been around for years. The committee is huge - almost to the point of being unmanageable as it is. To include all 30 parent applicants would have rendered it totally inefficient. And, it is important to have more than one voice on the committee. Representation of a variety of views is important and participants must be able to express their views in a forum where they will not be belittled or shamed. Dr. Schneider is just one participant of many in this group. The rest of the L4All group (except Benitis who is not on the committee) are gone. Instead of attacking the committee, if you want to participate in some way, why don't you suggest a Town Hall meeting with Dr. White or request a one on one meeting this summer to express your concerns. I, for one, hope that the participants of this group listen to the teachers first, not parents, about what they believe is best for students and then go from there.

Anonymous said...

How many parents are on the finance and facilities committes? How were those parents chosen?

The Parents said...

6:50 a.m.: It is not true that no one complained about the committee selection process prior to the appointments being made. We know for a fact that parents who had submitted timely applications -- i.e. met the FIRST deadline -- did contact board members and/or administrators to raise the fairness argument and question why the deadline needed to be extended in the first place.

The Parents said...

6:50: One more thing -- We would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE if Dr. White would hold a TOWN HALL MEETING. We hope he does so, because we agree that this would go a long way toward proving to the community that our voices are important to the administration and that they are not afraid to hear from parents in an open forum where other parents can hear and meaningfully participate in a discussion, without restrictions or an orchestrated attempt by the administration to limit the topics/questions/ability for everyone to hear what others say by dividing everyone into small groups.

Anonymous said...

If you look closely at the participants, it looks like not only is every school represented, but so is every grade. Also, by my count at least four participants have children in the new math pilot. There are also a wide variety of viewpoints. This is what you want for an advisory committee - a diverse well qualified group. It is fantastic that so many well qualified people applied. That is a good sign for this district. The committee cannot become too large or it will not be effective. However, to keep the committee fresh and to include more people, there should be a one year term limit. That way the well qualified people who did not make the cut this year will have a shot next year.

Anonymous said...

Parents: I meant that parents who submitted applications and who are now complaining about not being selected should not complain about the fact that the administration selected a smaller group of applicants than those who applied. The fact that that was going to happen was clearly spelled out from day 1. I know that parents complained about the extended deadline - I was one of them - and I agree that that was not appropriate. I was speaking about the process of choosing the applicants itself. Dr. White had two options: 1. Delay the formation of the committee until he had time to interview all of the candidates himself (a colossal waste of his time that would delay important decisions that need to be made) or 2. Solicit input about the applicants from a group of people, which is what he did. Again, these parents will hopefully represent a variety of interests and viewpoints and, in some cases, present a fresh perspective. That is a good thing. In my opinion, it will be impossible for any of the committee members, currently involved or not, to support many aspects of the L4All plan. The fact that there will be new voices becoming involved and coming to the same conclusions we already have is also a good thing. I hope that they will all listen to the experts and to each other so that they can express educated and well-informed viewpoints that will represent the best interests of all D181 students. The formation of this committee does not preclude, hopefully, on-going communication from any parent who wants to do so. A Town Hall meeting would be great but only if we can get more than the same 20 parents to attend.

The Parents said...

Even if only 20 parents who regularly attend board meetings would show up at a town hall meeting, that would still be 20 new voices that Dr. White has not heard from since he is new to the district. We sincerely hope he schedules a meeting and soon.

Anonymous said...

It is my hope that parents who were selected for the committee will solicit input and feedback from their own school communities, to the extent feasible, either through PTO meetings/communications or in some sort of mini town hall format.

Anonymous said...

That is not one of the stated roles of the parents on the committee and I think it would be burdensome and impractical for them to do so each month. The committee participation requirements are already significant if done well. Also, there have been MANY meetings about these topics and they are historically poorly attended with the same parents always showing up. A waste of everyone's time. Certainly the committee members can pass on information they hear but it is far more impactful (and less filtered) if parents go to the administration, BOE, teachers and principals directly themselves.

Perhaps the committee could e-mail the community the topics that are being discussed and have some sort of group e-mail address so that parents could submit comments to the group as a whole. It would be interesting to see just how many parents actually made the time to do the necessary research and submit comments.

Anonymous said...

The only way the previous idea will work is if the curriculum committee meetings are video taped and available to the public. Otherwise, parents have no idea if their ideas were presented or not. Why should someone else speak for me?

Anonymous said...

Everyone LOVED the idea of this committee.....until they were not picked to be on it.

PLEASE lets give this committee a chance. The committee has a diverse group of people who can deliver a diverse group of opinions. And the parents will be the minority members of the committee and will not be making decisions. Other parents can still email the BOE and Dr. White with their own opinions and make public comments at BOE meetings. No parents will be representing all parents or making decisions for anyone elses child. Remember, this is a committee that the parents asked for.

Anonymous said...

Those are all points well taken. Serving on the committee is a lot of work and hosting additional information gathering meetings would prove to be too burdensome. I also would not expect committee members to act in a representative capacity. Ideally, the district will post meeting agendas publicly, ala BoardDocs or under the Resources tab, and the committee minutes will be posted in a timely manner post-meeting -- something I will suggest to Dr. White and the Board. If the district doesn't do something of the sort, it might not be too unreasonable to hope that parent members could email their respective PTO boards a *brief* status report intended to be shared at PTO meetings, e.g. this is the issue before the committee this month, these are the materials we are reviewing, etc. Nothing too burdensome -- hopefully just a one, or two liner. (Of course, members can do what they want. This is not intended to impose another responsibility on members who are already undertaking a huge amount of work but it is something I would have done if selected.)

HMS Parent said...

No one will be burdened if the meetings are "open" and non member parents are allowed to attend as audience members OR the meetings are video taped. BOTH are allowed at D86 committee meetings. If they can do it in that dysfunctional district, why not do it in D181? Not hard to do, if you really want to be transparent.

Anonymous said...

Transparency is vital for this group to be even the remotest bit effective. I did not apply, but I find it curious that the extension date was pushed back in order to exclude the first applicants.

Video taping or having open to the public meetings is a great idea.

Makes sense that people would become disenchanted by being excluded. It was only a volunteer position. I am really shocked that Jill Q. was not included. I have worked with her on many committees and she is wonderful. Our neighboring district pays her to teach, yet when she offers her services to is for free, our administration rejects her? Makes no sense. As another poster stated, I am sure the others on the committee will do a nice job, but had more people been included, I think a new, more positve chapter would have begun in our district.

Anonymous said...

It is striking that not one father was chosen to be on this committee. Although Tracy and Leslie can be a man's name, I'd bet against it, here.

Anonymous said...

The K brothers (Kevin and Kurt) wouldn't want a man serving on this committee to challenge their untested, half-baked ideas. Russell can't leave soon enough. Let's hope Schneider will be next.

jay_wick said...

I do not agree that everyone loved the idea of this committee.
I have long advocated not for the 'closed door' superintendent's meetings that seem overly strong in their warnings that folks are not to attend unless it is by invitation but for transparency and cooperation in solving the mess that has been made of our once strong curriculum.

Such "choosen few" meetings are unquestionably an effort to subvert the intent of the Illinois Open Meeting Act. While such things are apparently compliant with the letter of the law, there is no logical reason that the standards of the Open Meeting Act should not apply to any meeting where there is no discussion of individual staff or other sensitive matters.
These actions create a cabal of insiders that can hatch schemes in secrecy.

Even the opinion of the Illinois Association of School Boards, an organization generally in the corner of the superintendents, is quite clear that when the intent of the committee is to the subvert openness such formulation open the BOE up to closer scrutiny -- Committees will trigger Open Meetings Act

As there is not yet any schedule and the tentative target is August that would give the BOE ample opportunity to reformulate this as a legitimate source of improvement.

The Parents said...

Mr. Wick: We couldn't agree with you more. Well said.

Anonymous said...

I completely agree with Wick. And in reference to a previous post, had anyone complained prior to the selection, they would have been automatically been labeled negative and probably excluded from the committee.

Anonymous said...

OMG!! Do you people read what you blog? Many of you sound like a bunch of whiners and poor sports because things don't go your way. Many of you will NEVER be happy with anything the administration does, even when parents ask for it. Many of these bloggers don't want to help, they want to complain. There are so many administrators being replaced, that
change WILL happen but may not be the change many of you may want. Many of you are being soooo unfair right now. How about giving the new administrators a chance before belittling them. Gee whiz, quit being so negative about everything in this district!

Anonymous said...

Dear OMG,
You are incorrect. In the many years that I have been here, I have never been as happy as I am to see that Renee Schuster is only a couple weeks away from leaving. Now we REALLY have a reason to celebrate!! And if you are so worried and unhappy, why don't you leave, too? The district is finally making some changes in the right direction, and it is very encouraging.

Buh Bye!!

Jill Quinones said...

OMG at 3:43 - Perhaps you should take your own advice and read EVERYTHING that has been posted on this blog. – not just some of the comments. If you truly take the time I think you will see that the bloggers are not making negative comments about “everything in this District.” In fact, the majority of the comments are written by parents who feel they have followed proper procedure, but their children have been negatively affected or harmed in some way by administrative and/or Board decisions that were not particularly well thought out from a practical standpoint and not just a theoretical one.

They are also written by taxpayers who have some real concerns over wasteful spending.

I believe some are written by teachers who do not feel that decisions being made are always in the best interest of their students (our children) and that their professional judgment is not always respected.

It is not about complaining when things don’t go one’s way. It is not about winning or losing. It is about years of a child’s education that cannot be reclaimed. It is about hard earned money being spent without there always being the most rational and careful consideration of options. It is about wanting the best for our children and our community and persevering in trying to achieve it. It is about challenging what does not seem right rather than blindly or naively accepting what one is told. I know I teach my children to question, but to make sure there is evidence to back up any challenges or criticisms. I have seen most of these blogs written with the facts to substantiate the challenges.

How do you know the bloggers don’t want to help – only to complain? I know quite a few, including myself, who have helped and continue to offer help. And if some of the blogs are 100% pure complaining – so what? It is healthy to vent. If a reader is offended, they don’t have to read the blog.

Although I have only a few more years in the District, I look forward to Dr. White moving it in a more positive direction so there won’t be as much of a need to vent, so fewer children (hopefully none) will be negatively affected by theoretical decision making, and so our teachers feel respected and well prepared to do their job every day.

jay_wick said...

Dear OMG -

Not that long ago I would have sided with folks that call for a "wait and see" stance. Unfortunately what has changed my mind has been the numerous failings of the BOE majority to act in an manner that addresses legitimate concerns of student performance or gives honest answers to how the district's resources are being managed.

It would be one thing if the district was "out in front" of these issues. Arguably efforts that were made previously to increase transparency / accountability have been rolled back and it is up to Dr. White to ensure that things move forward toward more openness.

Basic information about how much the new labor agreement will add in costs to the district has yet to be delivered.

There has been a troubling lack of clarity about alleged changes made to address the root of problems with math acceleration -- what are the criteria for "track movement"? What efforts have been made to give students support? How have differences between sites been addressed? Why was "detracking" partially implemented in a hasty manner while efforts to improve the pedagogical and content knowledge of staff gone unaddressed for two years?

Why have maintenance issues been ignored? Who will be honest enough to assign responsibility for failure to enable so basic a system as "repair tickets"?

What has happened to plans to improved foreign language instruction? That was supposedly "ready to go" and when the district agreed to delay it in the face of noisy efforts to re-purpose teaching talent, shutter successful enrichment and quiet the squeaky wheels of "missed privilege" one could not envision that the whole plan was junked but that seems to be the case.

Finally what of the district's love affair with a plan designed more to win the admiration of simplistic daytime TV hosts than really help improve any real needs for children in our district. You won't find this video on the district web site but I urge folks to watch this. Non-Negotiable Principles This is an appallingly out-of-touch /out-dated view that is not up to the standards of what we should expect of our central office staff.

These serious issues point to a systemic lack of leadership and Dr. White has precious little time to gets these matters under control before yet another year of decline mars our once exemplary district.

Anonymous said...

Well said Jill and Wick. In this district you are labelled a naysayer, crazy, a problem, ect. when you speak up. The fact of the matter is that this district is in a downward spiral. Most parents started off voicing concerns to principals, administrators, ect only to be repeatedly ignored. We teach our students to be critical thinkers. But when we parents do the same, we are margenalized. We are told we are not following SELAS. We are denied access to committees. This is about children and giving them the best education possible. It is also about using our tax dollars wisely. The administration has done poorly on both fronts and has lost trust. Yet once again we parents are in the wrong. Why are they not wrong for rolling out programs with no supporting data? Why are they not wrong for disrespecting teachers? Parents are upset about this committee because once again the administration is being unethical, excluding vocal parents, and bending the rules to suit there own purposes. Anyone who doesn't blindly support them is shunned. But, right, we are not following SELAS. Really SELAS of them to use our kids as test cases and then benefit personally on the lecture circuit. Really SELAS of them to ignore mold at HMS for years and then waste our money trying to fix the problem at the 11th hour. I could go on and on, but that wouldn't be very SELAS of me.

Anonymous said...

Which parent is representing CHMS? Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see anyone.

Jill Quinones said...

The parenting representing CHMS is Elizabeth Speziale, although her child graduated this year and her next one will not be there until 2015-16. I was told that the idea is not that the parents are really "representing" the other parents from the school as much as having working knowledge of what happens in the school curriculum-wise. The selection folks felt that because she just finished up there she knew enough about what went on to knowledgeably participate.

Anonymous said...

Interesting because I know three very involved parents who applied who have current children at CHMS.

Anonymous said...

At least one of these parents is a PTO president. Why do PTO presidents always get picked to interview principal candidates? And now this? Don't they have enough to do at thei individual schools? Why not let other applicants participate and spread parent involvement around?

Outraged Parent andClarendon Hills Voter said...

I still can't believe Jill Quinones was rejected. To turn someone away with her credentials and expertise is just plain stupid and I believe shows how afraid the administration is of perhaps picking parents that are smarter and more qualified than they are. God willing, Ms. Quinones will consider running for either the D181 or D86 school board next Spring. If she runs for D181 it will hopefully deter Turek from running again and thinking he'll have the Clarendon Hills vote in the bag.Please do every tax payer a favor Mr.Turek and run fast and far.

Anonymous said...

Schuster was very clear that they were going to pick one parent from each school. To not have one from CHMS with a current student there is inexplicable. Isn't Ms. Quinones a CHMS parent, not just in the past but next year as well? Why wasn't she picked?

Anonymous said...

The three parents that I know who applied and who have current children at CHMS, all applied by the original deadline. Makes you wonder......

Anonymous said...

Again the administration is rewriting the rules (extending the original deadline), and then bending their own rules (about one parent per school) to suit their own purposes. It is one big farse.

Anonymous said...

If you are looking for a reason that folks with education backgrounds were not selected it might be because of how "fast and loose" the Non-negotiable Principles presentation was on the facts.
I followed the link from above; everyone that lives in the district needs to see this:
http://youtu.be/G_EYZm9cAU8

Seriously flawed use of data!
I went to a pretty middle-of-the-road college for my education degree(and although I live in the district I don't teach here), but I paid attention in the courses that taught me how to interpret data.
Either that presenter did not pay attention or is just twisting things for their own ends.

Honestly, to quote people like John Hattie, who is a well respected educational researcher from New Zealand, in the way shown in the video is dishonest at best.

It would be very interesting to have the Foundation host Dr. Hattie and have him explain what his research shows -- the data he used for "acceleration" is IN POINT OF FACT, "whole level grade acceleration" of the type that highly gifted students sometimes endeavor. His data shows it is a solid strategy for what his analysis seeks, progress on objective measure of grade level mastery.

http://visible-learning.org/glossary/

Lots of other sources validate the work of Hattie, in the context of his studies, but anyone that paid attention in their education classes would know that factors like the number of studies are needed to fully appreciate the validity of meta-analysis and caution is needed.

http://www.teacherstoolbox.co.uk/T_effect_sizes.html

Hattie is a passionate advocate for school improvement but is also honest -- http://visiblelearningplus.com/about

He makes a strong argument that the best way to improve student performance is to give students more useful feedback and to do that teachers need to rethink many of the habits that they've adopted. http://youtu.be/3pD1DFTNQf4


It is dishonest to rely on arguments of emotion to push an agenda that does not help the students in D181. Taken in the context of the recent survey results that cast serious doubts on the abilities of some staff in the district it might be very wise to craft interventions for some...

Anonymous said...

Well said 11:24 a.m. The guru behind the L4A plan is pushing his own personal agenda and manipulating data for his own career. He speaks of wanting to put D181 on the national map. Hah! He wants to be on the national map. By all means, please leave D181 and go to Washington DC L4A guru. You won't be missed in D181.