Q: When is a Process not a Process? A: When it Comes to Selecting Who Will Serve on the Superintendent's Learning Committee

This evening we received the following information and chart from D181 Parent, Community Member and Taxpayer, Jill Quinones.  She submitted it via the comments page. She requested that we publish it as a stand alone post, and copy the chart from a link she included.  After reading through the content, we agree that the entire community should be made aware of the information she shared with the blog because in our opinion, it establishes that the artificially extended deadlines, incomplete applications, and behind the scenes decision making all tainted the process and the good intent of those who were selected.

Ms. Quinones' Post:

"Today I received the response to a FOIA I filed about the Superintendent’s Learning Committee process. I asked for the Applications and supporting material. I also asked for emails regarding the process. Being the data junkie I am, I prepared a chart. It was very easy to see who applied by the first deadline as the application was modified after that deadline to say that the deadline had been extended.

29 people applied in total – 26 parents and 3 community members. 

19 people applied by the 1st deadline, with more than one representing every school except Elm. No one applied from Elm by the 1st deadline although one person who applied as an HMS parent previously had children at Elm.

10 additional people applied by the second deadline.

Of the 19 people who met the 1st deadline, 5 were chosen (26%)
Of the 10 additional people who applied, 4 were chosen (40%)

Of the 4 people chosen who missed the 1st deadline, there were 2-4 other parents who had timely applied from CHMS, Madison & Walker. Guess Administration didn't like the choices! As noted above, no one timely applied from Elm.

Of the 9 parents selected, 3 are psychologists, 2 are lawyers, 2 have business / communication/ marketing backgrounds, 1 has an HR background and 1 is a PTO President, but no other information was included with her application. The Mission Statement for this Committee states in part that the members will "share relevant professional experiences... in the areas of curriculum, assessment, instruction and student services." As a result of this sharing, recommendations may or may not be taken to the BOE. 

Six (6) of the applicants, including 4 who applied by the 1st deadline, had curriculum backgrounds – NONE were selected.

Not enough information included with most applications to conclude whether grades and ability levels of children are diverse among those selected.

Even more interesting were some of the comments in the emails suggesting (1) before the selection committee met, at least two parents were weeded out of the applicant process based on allegations that they bully teachers, although no evidence of this was included in the materials I was provided, (2) at least one principal was asked to bring forth the name of whom he wanted to be the parent representing his school (so much for the committee selection process), and (3) while some parents submitted detailed applications, at least one who was selected provided nothing but their name and address.

Now while I am sure those selected are committed, eager, and will work their hardest to represent all of the children, the way the Administration handled this process is particularly disturbing."


CHART: (Green highlights denote selected members.)