GREELEYVILLE by Jane Paudaux

Greeley District 6 CASP Scores Are Out! Not Pretty.

2010-08-10T17:59:00.006-05:00

Unbelievable. If you have a kid in a public school in Colorado I strongly urge parents to make both the State and Districts accountable for fully publishing these scores. It appears the State, at least, are playing them down. Too close to elections.

It looks like they have changed the display of the scoring system so results don't look so dismal. 4th grade Math D6 has moved from 33% proficiency to 40% proficiency while 25% are "partially proficient". Hah! That will get those kids a job all right in our future economy--Walmart Stockboy. It looks like they have broken out the Spanish Speaker scores. Anyway you look at it there are still 60% of 4th graders failing full proficiency in Math.

I just took a look at the Colorado State Education site. Oddly, I don't remember it being this difficult to find the CSAP scores last year when I reported on them. Most incompetent school board, District 6, and administrative staff I have ever encountered. And the community of Greeley is doing relatively nothing about it. Both Ms. Lang, Superintendent and Mr. Eads are still raking in the dough with Mr. Eads having extraordinary power for his known qualifications. It was Mr. Eads, if Greeley remembers, who put up the strange figures for the proposed 16 million dollar budget loss--that wasn't really a 16 million dollar budget loss after all but helped the Board sweep through personnel and the Teacher's Union with a wide brush and strike fear into classified personnel. After having spent, in the previous year or two, the District's reserves on software instead of saving it for an emergency prudently!

Meanwhile the Teacher's Union has zero power after the Board forced it to role over while claiming budget woes and drastic cuts that turned out not to be quite so drastic after all. After the District had shed a lot of teachers, undermined the hispanic community schools, consolidated all the violent offenders in with the low performers, and clearly refused to clean house at the Administrative level.

Yet few in Greeley seem to care. Why is that?

Assessment Data & Results

www.schoolview.org

Colorado's state assessment system includes three different types of assessments to measure student achievement. The main assessment used in the state is the CSAP, which assesses students in reading, writing and math state standards in grades 3 through 10. The CSAP science assessment is also given...

Oh Where, Oh Where....

2010-04-29T12:19:00.002-05:00

Jane has left the building for now. I'll be back.

Greeley School District 6 Cuts Government and World Culture Requirements

2010-03-29T17:59:00.010-05:00

Greeley Colorado's infamous school district, District 6, has been busy putting the finishing touches on the mountain of financial cuts the Board has declared as needed. It began, if you recall, with a panicked forced contract on teachers to save money, grew into a dire 15% round of emergency cuts, and has ended with an actual 6% shortfall for next year. That shortfall as I stated earlier could have been almost covered with reserves had the reserves not been questionably spent earlier.

In addition to bullying the teacher's union, firing the District's Human Resource Director and replacing him with a her from the inside, the District has taken on the consolidation of "under-utilized" schools according to Mr. Wayne Eads--the janitor turned operations manager. One consolidation move places alternative students together under one roof at Jefferson. Hence forth parents will be happy to know that students who have a low performance academically will now be attending the same school as kids who have violent histories and have already been, or their next stop will likely be, Platte Correctional Center.

Additionally District 6 has removed Government and World Cultural Geography from graduation requirements and made them "electives". Whether or not the school will continue to fund teachers for these courses every term is also "elective". From this year forward students, our future community leaders and citizen voters, may actually be able to get out of high school without learning ANYTHING at all about government process and people from other parts of the world--formally. What a great plan.

In the meantime there is a lovely discussion going around the community that these cuts have been based on the "best guesses" of people like Mr. Eads and a few accounting studies on utilization rates. It has yet to be seen what Ms. Ranelle Lang, the Superintendent does to earn her pay (see earlier posts on Mr. Eads' inflated role in D6), and why educational outcome studies were not used to base the financial cuts upon. It is very easy to surmise without these studies being published, without Ms. Lang standing up in front of the public in an open question and answer forum or appearing in front of D6 teachers, that the whole hoopla this year, following the failed voter initiative, has been a timely recessional scare tactic for cleaning house at D6.

Only problem is the good old boys are still running the show. They just aren't being very transparent about what is happening. They'd do well I suspect in the corporate private world. It is too bad they've been given a public institution to play with.

But nonetheless the Good Old Boy Board and Administration have made some changes and are in the process of shedding thirty-five employees and putting even more propaganda out in favor of themselves and Ms. Lang within the community. No one is talking education outcomes.

And who'd ever guess by the gutting of World Cultural Geography that Ms. Lang had the wonderful relationship, as stated in her Nebraska job interview process, with the local Hispanic community and its leaders. Which leaders would that be Ms. Lang?

Ms. Lang's home town wouldn't take her back so she may well be around now when those educational scores start coming in during the next two years. Only the Greeley Tribune and the lack of community interest will be able to paint those numbers pretty.

Accountability for poor decision making doesn't fall just on the Board. The community willing to roll over and play intellectually dead while all this goes on around them has to take some hit too. This is what happens when politics and ideology are allowed to embed themselves into a community's public institutions. It doesn't matter what the politics are about or whose side they are on--it is deadly to the outcome.

In this case Greeley's kids will pay the price for a very long time and those in the senior community, with few options to leave, will be able to serve as witness as services dwindle away and the various crime rates rise as happens with communities without viable opportunities for their citizens to succeed.

And the crowning cherry on the top of this muddy mountain? The District is buying its textbooks from Texas.

Should We Concentrate On Building Better Teachers in Greeley Colorado?

2010-03-04T13:36:00.009-05:00

Greeley-Evans School District 6 is my idea of a good example. It is a "hiring" problem. But that's not all. The article below on Building Better Teachers shared from the New York Times talks about the problem in common terms we can all understand. Although that isn't the only reason it is a great article. The article looks at the complexity of the problem of measurement and attaching pay to that measurement. Very long but a worthy read for the profession, for parents, and for voters. It focuses the debate on change in a reasonable and identified target area.

I am thinking about the content a lot. For me a hiring problem, like the one I have described underlying Greeley District 6's problems (these are performance problems prior to the fall back in State and Local Taxes), is a management problem. To say that hiring a good Human Resources Director is crucial kind of undermines our common dislike of such people. And most people I know are just happy to have a warm personality in the job. But this job is so very important to a large organization and developing a productive strategy and atmosphere we should get beyond the stereotypes. I've had to do this job and I've got to say there is a good reason the personality types tend to be cool and distant. It also clarified to me why Unions are a good thing to have around as a check and balance. It is not a fun job when all the human drama in an organization gets dumped on your lap and, personally, I didn't find many rewards in it except I was forced to learn an abundant amount of regulations which come in handy. Along with the various methods large organizations use to shed nonperforming employees, measure performance, and how to build a rubric for, and assess, candidates for new positions. Oh, and I know how to read 'ERISA' language and understand the 401k statements before I went to business school. That helped in a course or two.

There are three million teachers in the United States. Unless the merit pay (or similar) idea is used I don't see how education expects to only attract the cream of the crop. As I have said earlier in this blog--some of your teachers are bound to be average. In fact the bulk are likely to fall under the curve.

I'm not convinced either that really low performing districts shouldn't start with the management and the semi-skilled ideologues running the show. Train the human resources department at least. The Director can help train the Boards.

I get the measurement idea but the most effective teachers have something beyond mechanized skills in their pocket. They have spontaneous innovation and a vast breadth of learned material to draw upon. This could be addressed by better education of teachers. I stayed in a fifth and sixth year, before it was "cool", to do so in order to take the courses they didn't make the teachers take. I took the advanced math, genetics, chemistry (the professor thought I was nuts enrolling in bonehead course when I didn't have to), and later pursued upper level economic courses.

Still I remember clearly one of the questions on the teaching credential test. It isn't much of a math test certainly. "If Sue bought a car in 1973 and Bob purchased a car in 1978, how much older would Sue's car be than Bob's in 1980?"

But I digress. On to the article. I'll post a couple paragraphs below from the beginning. And spread it around please.

"But when it came to actual teaching, the daily task of getting students to learn, the school floundered. Students disobeyed teachers’ instructions, and class discussions veered away from the lesson plans. In one class Lemov observed, the teacher spent several minutes debating a student about why he didn’t have a pencil. Another divided her students into two groups to practice multiplication together, only to watch them turn to the more interesting work of chatting. A single quiet student soldiered on with the problems. As Lemov drove from Syracuse back to his home in Albany, he tried to figure out what he could do to help. He knew how to advise schools to adopt a better curriculum or raise standards or develop better communication channels between teachers and principals. But he realized that he had no clue how to advise schools about their main event: how to teach.

Around the country, education researchers were beginning to address similar questions. The testing mandates in No Child Left Behind had generated a sea of data, and researchers were now able to parse student achievement in ways they never had before. A new generation of economists devised statistical methods to measure the “value added” to a student’s performance by almost every factor imaginable: class size versus per-pupil funding versus curriculum. When researchers ran the numbers in dozens of different studies, every factor under a school’s control produced just a tiny impact, except for one: which teacher the student had been assigned to. Some teachers could regularly lift their students’ test scores above the average for children of the same race, class and ability level. Others’ students left with below-average results year after year. William Sanders, a statistician studying Tennessee teachers with a colleague, found that a student with a weak teacher for three straight years would score, on average, 50 percentile points behind a similar student with a strong teacher for those years. Teachers working in the same building, teaching the same grade, produced very different outcomes. And the gaps were huge. Eric Hanushek, a Stanford economist, found that while the top 5 percent of teachers were able to impart a year and a half’s worth of learning to students in one school year, as judged by standardized tests, the weakest 5 percent advanced their students only half a year of material each year."

Charter Schools, Standardized Testing, and Conservative Ideology Under the Spotlight

2010-03-03T10:19:00.010-05:00

Greeley Colorado District 6 has been championing expanding Charter Schools, as has, to be fair, the Obama Administration. For me Charter Schools are usually (not always) a political bone to throw to the predominantly wealthier classes to segregate their kids from those "not like us". Greeley's District 6 "dramatized" cuts are falling predominantly on the minority and poorer schools in Northern Colorado.

Let's face it the poor just don't vote or are easily misled to vote against their own interests. Greeley's School Board isn't the first to be swayed politically, whether consciously or unconsciously, and won't be the last.

But this article caught my eye this morning. A leopard changing spots? A product of conservative "balance the checkbook and ignore long term consequences" policy think tanks is learning from long term outcomes? If true it is a bright spot in a long dark tunnel. There is a reasonable place for both short and long term perspectives.

I don't think I was the only child who heard their grandmother experienced voice reflect, "Moderation in all things, Baby-doll."

Okay, maybe not the "Baby-doll" part. That's mine.

Yet we stake out our polar positions and hold on for dear life it seems even when we realize the crowd has passed us by and isolation and rot is creeping in. Here Dr. Ratvich, a 'leading' educational policy maker steps out of her mold. Politically well timed to be sure but there is obvious progress being made and that is just terrific from my viewpoint.

Schools belong to their communities. Public goods, like education, fail in the free market ideals of America and should not be thrown into the private sector like chump change. They are simply too important to be left to corporate America and the "you-get-what-you-can-pay-for" feudal ethos.

It is a great article. I encourage those on both sides of the Charter School article to read it. It will take a long time before the middle-classes let go of their indoctrination on testing and privatizing schools but it is a start. I've haven't posted general articles for a while but this one is really a bright spot to see coming forward.

"These and other experiences left her increasingly disaffected from the choice and accountability movements. Charter schools, she concluded, were proving to be no better on average than regular schools, but in many cities were bleeding resources from the public system. Testing had become not just a way to measure student learning, but an end in itself.

From the New York Times online.

"...“The new thinking saw the public school system as obsolete, because it is controlled by the government,” she writes. “I argued that certain managerial and structural changes — that is, choice, charters, merit pay and accountability — would help to reform our schools.”

In January 2001, Dr. Ravitch was at the White House to hear President George W. Bushoutline his vision for No Child Left Behind, which Congress approved with bipartisan majorities and which became law in 2002.

“It sounded terrific,” she recalled in the interview.

There were signs soon after, however, that her views were changing. She had endorsed mayoral control of New York City schools before Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg obtained it in 2002, but by 2004 she had emerged as a fierce critic. Some said she was nursing a grudge because close friends had lost jobs in the mayor’s shake-up of the schools’ bureaucracy.

In 2005, she said, a study she undertook of Pakistan’s weak and inequitable education system, dominated by private and religious institutions, convinced her that protecting the United States’ public schools was important to democracy.

She remembers another date, Nov. 30, 2006, when at a Washington conference she heard a dozen experts conclude that the No Child law was not raising student achievement.

These and other experiences left her increasingly disaffected from the choice and accountability movements. Charter schools, she concluded, were proving to be no better on average than regular schools, but in many cities were bleeding resources from the public system. Testing had become not just a way to measure student learning, but an end in itself."

Greeley's Superintendent Ranelle Lang Interviews for Lincoln Schools Job

2010-02-28T15:40:00.005-05:00

Ranelle Lang, Superintendent of Greeley-Evans School District 6 apparently had an interview this last Thursday for a new job in her native Nebraska. A couple of local papers have published some of her comments. I've posted a piece below and also provided the link to the entire article.

I've also heard back from the State on the comingling of Special Education funds. D6 is consolidating its Special Education programs. Special Education funds are often "restricted" funds and must be spent only to meet the specific needs given. Indeed both State and Federal funds must be spent on the intended purposes but they only cover 2/3 of the total expense. Local funds cover the remaining 1/3. Comingling funds then with general funds, to the extent of my knowledge, would likely then be difficult to trace and probably acceptable up to some degree such as funding the facilities. If anyone has anything additional on the topic, please feel free to call or post.

Here is the article on Ranelle Lang from Nebraska's Journal Star. Here is a second link to an earlier piece, looks like a public relations piece, on Lang interviewing in Nebraska.

"On recruiting a diverse staff

Lang said the Greeley district, which is more than 50 percent Hispanic, has worked hard to recruit a diverse staff. She's hired two principals whose native language is not English.

And, she said, the district has started a leadership group for non-Anglo teachers and those who speak two languages.

On creating minority partnerships

Lang said she meets regularly with members of the Hispanic community in Greeley, and the district has created alternative programs to work with a wide variety of students. The district also has opened a welcome center where families can go to get all their children enrolled in school.

"It's really important that every single student is welcome and accepted and they feel like school is a place for them."'

One Notch Higher for Greeley Colorado District Six Parents

2010-02-23T02:42:00.013-05:00

My general opinion of the people living in Greeley Colorado's District 6 Schools jurisdiction just went up a notch last night after watching several adults and teens give the School Board of District 6, and Superintendent Renelle Lang, a common sense check on the true nature of their jobs: education. It is all about education of course. It is not about diminishing education so you can report to the State you've balanced your checkbook. But needless to say, following what was supposed to be organized as a "public hearing" the Board didn't flinch and went ahead with their intended plan to circumvent, anticipated, but as yet unkown, shortfalls in funding.

This Greeley District 6 School Board sat stonefaced last night in the middle of frigid Northern Colorado for about forty-five minutes while they heard brief commentaries from the public concerning the closure and realignment of different schools to help cover the implied 12% shortfall they will be facing in next year's budget. The shortfall may only be about 6% but it looks like the board has already decided and may have already begun spending the funds, according to some sources, to do a full house cleaning and realignment after years of poor decision making complicated by a recession. The budget crisis of course will cover their tracks with the general voter and parents and the new, lowered, graduation requirements will push off some of District 6 duties onto local community colleges and remedial programs thereby lowering District 6's future expenses.

Throughout the meeting, much of the board looked about as interested in what the speaker's had to say as a Kindergartner would be in reading Tolstoy.

One student, called to speak, got up and addressed the board and spoke about the process of her own enlightenment and growing up to overcome earlier mistakes and decisions made. Then she went on to explain, politely, to the Board how she conceived their actions on lowering graduation requirements. "...makes me feel like I'm not good enough."

Another student, Melissa from Central High School, presented the ice-pop board with a petition with 248 signatures on it which endorsed holding the current expectations in place. That is 248 teenagers telling the board "Don't lower the bar" we deserve and need better for our futures and to be competitive in finding jobs.

Board member Hinze looked several times, with his hand on his chin, like he would fall asleep out of having to endure the session.

Ranelle Lang, never having to, nor having had as far as I know, to face public scrutiny, the teacher's union, or general public questions sat on the far end with a strange pasted on smile and took notes once in a while to show she was engaged in what the students were mentioning.

The Face the World Exchange Student program put forth several exchange students currently enrolled who will face the prospect, now, of not being able to graduate. Their instructor/supervisor of the Exchange program was very polite and considerate of the board, as was everyone who spoke, but she pleaded with the board to at least allow the students to walk at graduation.

I kept thinking, in private business, this would be called a substantial breach of contract.

I regret I didn't get the first woman's name who spoke before the Thompson but her summary, polite and eloquent, ripped open the heart of the matter. These cuts are falling on the minority and impoverished populations. There haven't been any serious discussions of educational outcomes in a District already failing in education outcomes. Property values will plummet in the closed school areas. Students will be burdened with a sense of disruption, absent decent literary resources in the Districts that need them the most, and additional staffing aide cuts will likely ensure that new mammoth school with a lot of problem students thrown-in will turn into a cesspool. (Cesspool comment is mine, I am not as generous with the Board's job performance as the speakers were). And especially poignant was the woman's point that the communities being targeted were the least likely to speak out in defense of their own needs.

Another man, older, again I didn't get the name--I apologize, spoke about how the school Cameron had been targeted every time the District made cuts. Appears it isn't the first time the District 6 Board has carved more deeply into the poor and minority communities in Greeley. The speaker also noted that other solutions were available and had not been actively pursued.

But, by far, the best moment of the meeting was the eloquent delivery by the Thompson family coupled with these other adults during this "public hearing". The forty-five minutes designated turned into an actual reality of about 30. There is a wonderful irony here of the work the Board does on numbers--but I'll leave that alone for now.

Mr. Thompson stole the show for me. He spoke sandwiched between his eloquent daughter and wife. I'll paraphrase his words commenting about the changes to these specific neighborhood communities and the breaking up of his daughter's "family", "You, board members, have an ethical duty here to perform your job in a diligent manner and to listen, really listen, to what the public says here tonight and the impacts you are choosing to make on the education of the community--we elected you."

Indeed. Bravo Mr. Thompson. Can we get a member of your family to run for school board next year?

But listen they did not. In the regular school board session immediately following the vote was unanimous to give a green light to Mr. Eads, the ex-janitor turned operations supervisor's plan to consolidate schools. I've worked with many boards, served on many boards, and been in the audience listening to many boards--body language was clear, if polite, during the public session "The decision is done. Do we really have to sit here and listen to the public?" Not even the ill-famed Brett Reese made a peep during the session.

In total, several students of District 6 along with parents and one, brave, educator faced the board and each were allotted three whole minutes to speak about the effects of this change on the entire lives of the students the District serves. I declined to submit to the sign-up intimidation sheet to make my comments as I knew I could express my thoughts through this blog and with only thirty minutes allotted I thought it appropriate to give that time to the other community members and teachers present. They did a much better job.

About forty adults and teens filled the room. Two reporters were present. I handed the reporters a question about funding and had a short conversation with them. I am awaiting a formal response from the State on that same question but it hasn't come through yet. I'll publish when it does.

This is the first time, outside a regular board meeting, which I am aware of that the full board and Ms. Lang were in front of the public. But comments were restricted to those that had signed up. I learned of the meeting just a short time before it started and was told by a teacher that comments had been restricted to written ones presubmitted. That was not exactly the case. And when asked whether, considering it was a "public hearing", if the general public could comment at the meeting, a dour faced Board President said, "No" and held up the written comments shifting them around to put them in his proscribed order.

It was a pleasure to note that there were at least some more professional activity in the room. I was offered the opportunity to sign up to comment by, I am assuming, a staff member or assistant, who located me in the audience after my question. Also Ms. Trimberger came up to me at break and offered a kind and willing ear.

The humorous moment in the room came when the President of the Board, Bruce, fumbled the name of a District employee--the educator/librarian who lectured the board on depriving specific communities of very critical literacy sources. The woman eloquently and politely, with heavy undertones, reminded the Board President that she is important enough and been around long enough that he should be able to get her name correct.

The animosity between employee and employer was pretty clear if my take on her undertone was correct. I admire her for saying her peace. I know of other employees who felt too intimidated and are already in fear of losing their jobs through budget cuts to speak. Admittedly, I giggled. But I also felt just a moment of compassion. As someone who has managed hundreds of staff--and is horrible with name recall, I learned the lesson years ago that bobbling employees names is impolite at best.

Practice Bruce, practice. Your charm is loosing its appeal, and effect, rapidly in the outer community as well. It was my assumption, and pretty obvious that the Board was jumping hoops and had already likely made their decisions, if not, already spent funds towards this direction.

However to be fair the rest of the audience didn't seem to mind the time limits or the fact that the Board and Ms. Lang weren't taking questions or replying. This must be a new breed of public hearing. There were earlier sessions where the board broke up the public into four separate meetings spread across the town with one or two board members at each taking questions. I don't believe Ms. Lang has ever openly and professionally addressed the public. This is especially appalling to some given her salary and position that she leaves this responsibility to "others". For teachers, imagine having a "boss", unwilling to address you as a group.

It was an odd meeting for me. I have never seen a public meeting quite so civilized. It was like sitting in church. The audience didn't chat very lively and at first there wasn't any audience interaction after a speaker said their peace. There was only one pro-consolidation speaker. A student spoke positively about the consolidation. Certainly I wasn't looking for a tea party style meeting or town hall debacle but I have never seen anything so demure, controlled, and unconducive to bringing out public commentaries.

But still my respect for Greeley citizens rose a notch tonight. At least some are willing to step up to the plate and speak of the higher responsibilities of the community. Bravo. Kudos to everyone. Now if we can only get these community members on the board.

The Board has a tough job and a huge mess to clean up, mostly of their and previous Board's making. You have to hire the people with the appropriate skills and lose the buddy-buddy-hire-me-I'm-just-like-you system. Education should not be a political and special interest playground for any ideology. I hear, through teachers, the District canned the Human Resources Director. I don't know what the reason was they wrote on paper. Nor should I or the teachers be privy to that information--but good job. I am fairly sure his salary was high enough to tide him and his family over better than some in the community are doing. One ideologue down and a few more to go.

Of course it depends on their choices and process in finding a replacement whether or not this is the beginning of real change in the District or if it is just moving around the pea under new shells.

Lincoln Nebraska School District, Ranelle Lang's home territory, in search of a new public schools administrator, keeps hitting this website looking for Ranelle Lang's contract. Hopefully to make her an offer she can't resist. Personally I think the Greeley Colorado District 6 should send a copy to them with blessings on their new hire.

Financial Crisis or House Cleaning for Greeley District 6 Schools

2010-01-25T02:08:00.012-05:00

Cutting budgets is never easy. Particularly when you are talking about cutting out two hundred jobs in an already economically ravaged town. Yet, there are better approaches and poorer approaches. It isn't clear yet just what approach Greeley District 6 is applying but it already doesn't look pristine. What is certain is that the School Board and Superintendent Lang of Greeley Schools District 6 are facing a serious financial reworking of the District or they are being cagey about cleaning house (restructuring/downsizing).

Maybe a little of both, eh? An interesting question isn't it.

After having read through the school district's audited financials report and the budget for the upcoming year, as posted on the District's website, I've been crunching some figures and noting some things that leave me with a lot more questions about the approach the long troubled District has taken.

(Before you keep reading, for those of you who like to skip the pertinent informational numbers--the conclusion is in the bottom three to four paragraphs. So is the District Administrative Organizational Chart.)

First of all I'd like to note that only 39.1 percent of students in this district tested proficient last year in math. 39.1 percent, grades 3-10 from the CASP scores according to an October 2009 budget presentation that Mr. Wayne Eads prepared for the board (it is available on the D6 website). I'll come back to Mr. Eads, Chief Operations Manager, later on in the article but for now let's concentrate on the numbers. This leaves a bit over 60 percent of the students as nonproficient.

Writing: 45.4 percent tested at or above proficiency. Well if we use the bell curve it doesn't seem too bad but I don't recall the theory behind education stating that more than 50% of students will not need to be proficient.

No doubt there are those that will blame the writing and reading issues on immigrant children. That argument is a whole bucket of water complete with holes. If true then the proficiency rate trend would hold similar in all districts with nonnative language speakers. ESL learners tend to be convenient political scapegoats. But we will give D6 administrators the benefit of the doubt on reading and writing simply because they have enough problems without that one.

But math? Math? The universal language. Come on people. There are more than just financial problems in the District.

Okay, let's move on to the next area. Ms. Lang cites up to $16 million in cuts may be needed in her letter delivered to staff last week through email. Shocking isn't it. No, not that Ms. Lang didn't have Mr. Eads write the letter, but that $16 million is a whole lot of money to most folks.

But that $16 million it isn't so big when you put it up against the total budget (revenues in the audited financials in 2009: $162,618,011) and examine the other budget figures for District 6 as prepared by, not the Finance Officer, not the Superintendent, but Mr. Wayne Eads, Chief Operations Manager. If you take a quick peak at the organizational chart at the bottom you'll see finance, oddly, falls under his dominion.

In 2009 budgeted reserves are $3,443,442. That is down from 2006 when reserves for general purposes (restricted reserves can not be used for general purposes) was $11,232,259 *Mr. Eads notes "We have been spending our reserves on instructional tools." The State of Anti-Education Colorado isn't too happy about the "state" of the reserves. Mr. Eads declares "This is a clear warning from the state that we are spending more than we are getting in revenue."

Or would that be that the District is making poor spending choices? Flip-a-coin.

The District is actually seeing a 2.97% revenue increase this year after restrictions the School Finance Act puts on the money reducing the overall increase. Student growth needs have already been calculated into the budget, again, according to Mr. Eads, the custodian turned Operations Director turned District Teacher Contract Negotiator turned Budget Analyst turned District Spokesperson turned School Board Advisor.

What does Ms. Lang do for her $180,000 + salary+ perks besides manage a grouping of Principals?

Mr. Eads total revenue column lists $134.3 million (this comes from Mr. Eads presentation on the current budget rounds not the audited financials quoted above from 2009). This is an increase of $5.9 million from the previous year. The audited statement, of 2009, if I am reading it correctly has a total of $165 million as actual revenues received by the District. I have no explanation for the difference. I imagine a possibility is unanticipated revenue that came in during the year (a windfall), increase in federal funding for that year, Mr. Eads is eliminating restricted funding, or the State cut that amount from the District. Take your pick or make up your own reasoning.

The district maintains eight different governmental funds. The major funds are the General Fund, the Capital Reserve Fund, Designated Special purpose Grants Fund, and the Bond Redemption Debt Service Fund. (p. 14 of the Annual Audited Financial Statement for 2009)

Mr. Eads goes on in the slide presentation to list new funding items expected in the upcoming year to cost $1.65 million. He then goes on, in October, to talk about hearing about a 10% shorfall and ponders, "What are the consequences of an actual 10% reduction in the District's budget?"

Now it starts getting more interesting, well at least for me, as Mr. Eads 'brilliantly' reduces a grossly complex budget into two simplistic categories so, I am assuming, the Board, made up of common Greeley folk, can grasp it better. Expenditures are 87% People (note Ms. Lang changes this in her letter to employees as PERSONNEL COSTS) and 13% All non-salary items which are listed as Utilities, Fuel, Textbooks, Computers, Office Supplies.

Okay so where are all the other expenses such as insurance, consultant fees (who are not personnel), maintenance, grounds keeping, etc? Did Mr. Eads leave these out or figure they were just too complex for the Board to grasp things other than certain types of expenditures? Are they in restricted funds (which would maybe explain the above referenced thirty million dollar change in revenues)?

Mr. Eads then goes on to advise the Board, "If a 10% reduction were imposed among all employee groups we would have to lay off at least 200 employees. Class sizes would increase. Programs and services would be reduced." He goes on to give slight scenario examples, advise to the board on broader economic consequences to employees and the community, and lays out criteria and a timeline for how to proceed.

Gee, and I thought the Superintendent did all this work with the support staff. Guess not. So an Operations Manager is left to decide or recommend the cuts to the budget which will threaten learning outcomes for 19,300 students? Why are we paying Ms. Lang again? Public Relations? Fundraising? Oversight of the Teacher's Union? Um, I don't see any evidence of activity in these areas. She has the equivalent of a CFO, an Operations Manager, a Public and Community Relations Manager, a Human Resources Person, a Security Advisor, and an Assistant Superintendent plus more.

I'd like to see Ead's resume and both Mr. Eads and Ms. Lang's job description please... thank you very much.

Let's visit the number relationships now. $16 million, the maximum predicted shortfall of revenue is, rounding numbers, right at 12 percent of Mr. Eads $134 million dollar budget. It is about 10 percent if you use the $165 million dollar budget figure (rounded up) from the audited return mentioned above (available on the D6 website).

So here are my thoughts. Do with them as you wish. I am not an accountant and there is certainly room for reasonable explanations in rebuttal here. If we could only get Ms. Lang present to answer questions.

The 10% figure does not sound as significant as $16 million dollars when put in the context of the whole budget. Although I can understand why they would put the shortfall out in concrete terms rather than a percentage. After all math proficiency in the District isn't great. If all areas of the budget receive a universal 10% reduction what would the effects be?

Why not go to the public and ask for specific help in raising funds to save specific favored programs? Why not make cuts in the "upper-crust" schools as deeply?

Here is another radical idea, if 87% of the costs are personnel based then why not encourage those able to do it to take a 10% reduction in compensation for a period of one year. Hence saving a little over $14 million with 100% participation and saving 200 jobs (according to Mr. Eads). It is a radical idea and rather a pushy one. Those making $180,000 a year, like Superintendent-What-Does-She-Do Ms. Lang would be sacrificing $18 thousand while a custodian like Eads-Used-To-Be, probably paid $18,000 a year or so would be sacrificing $1,800. On the flip side of the argument, the $1,800 would probably bite into essentials a lot more for the custodian than the $18,000 that wouldn't go into Ms. Lang's savings account. Alternative or future year benefits could be promised if better solutions develop. Although the Board's "promises" haven't proven to worth squat in contract negotiations.

So, why all the hoopla about consolidating schools, closing off buildings, selling buildings, and major changes? Hoopla is easy to create when there are other economic crisis in play throughout the State of Colorado and the Nation. Sometimes people have the tendency to overreact. Of course if you are one of the two hundred employees who have now been told job cuts are on the way a big reaction should be on the table. The sky is falling, the sky is falling, said Chicken Little.

But what if it's not. What if the crisis is only a 10% crisis, as compared to say a "huge" crisis. Let's put Chicken Little away for a moment and play out another scenario.

Greeley has a school district which has had some very hard times and made some very poor financial decisions in the past. In my own personal view the main issue in the district is poor hiring choices (see my prior posts on the topic) that have left the district riddled with semi-skilled ideologues and a "good old boy" network. They've made some improvements in the last couple of years with some minor administration changes and new Board members. But more changes are needed.

So I have to ask myself if I am a board member and have spent a couple years researching the problems and have identified the need to drastic changes to correct previous errors of judgment, how would one do that? Politely ask people to leave so you could replace them with more qualified staff and downsize the facilities? Somehow I don't think that would go over well.

The problem becomes clearer. How do you make the needed changes when faced with 87% of your costs in personnel and most of that backed by a Union--where you have to have a substantial and documented objective reason for firing someone? Laying someone off due to economics is an easier route. Additionally firing classified staff gets even easier if the Union has been substantially weakened through failed contract negotiations and faces little public sympathy in an era of recession in a working-class town. In fact, considering the District has forced contracts onto the teachers that are only one year in duration, for this current school year, it might be substantially easier. So easy that teachers may have almost no recourse at all. Political enemies are next on the list.

And then, finally, the house is clean and ready for a fresh start and the people mainly responsible for the problems in the first place get another turn at another go at fixing things without direct accountability or consequences for the initial errors.

Okay, I am not an attorney. I wish I had stayed awake during my fund accounting courses. The above is a conspiracy scenario and a rather scary one to consider. I have been through a restructuring myself and I have also been in charge of restructuring a couple of smaller corporations. I know how the strategies in management can be played out. It doesn't mean, they are playing out. But appropriate questions should be asked of the Board and their employee, Ms. Lang. Or perhaps Mr. Eads is the one to be questioned. I also know that there are presentations I haven't seen and documents I haven't read. I do not have any experience at management levels in a government supported organization. I also don't know the true legal ramifications of the contractual failures. And, truly, the Board is in a very difficult place any way you look at the situation.

Fixing both past and present errors in judgment and shortfalls with an open and forthright agenda would be the humane approach. Well, maybe not for the Board but certainly for the employees and community. Hiring highly skilled people to complete the downsizing would be sensible.

Establishing a written criteria for selecting people to be laid off based on a combination of actual performance, tenure, job duties, etc., would go a long way towards ensuring that the above scenario has not one bite of reality in it. A preliminary plan for educational quality recovery might be the next best comforting thing. How does the District go forward after the debacle.

Other things on my mind, where is Ms. Lang when the community needs to hear her professional assessment of the state of education in Greeley? Is direct oversight of the Principles and Associate Principles a good use of her time and skills during this crisis? Why is Mr. Eads signature on the cover letter of the Audited Financials in lieu of Ms. Lang's? Did Ms. Lang purposely not sign the audit? Is there another signature somewhere? Why is Mr. Eads, on the organizational chart, the supervisor of the finance officers in lieu of the Planning and Accountability Manager supervising this department? Maybe an ex-custodian has the qualifications, experience, and skills required to be in this position over a $134 million dollar budget. Maybe not. Personally, I'd feel a whole lot better if the information was coming out of Ms. Lang's mouth and not Mr. Eads'. At least I'd have a more complete picture of whether she has a handle on this mess.

There are 19,300+ students counting on us to get it right.

The District 6 Organizational Chart--from the Audited Financial Report

(If you double click on the chart it might open up into a bigger window. If not the chart can be found inside the audited financials on the District 6 website linked above.)

Greeley Colorado District 6 School Superintendent: Up to $16 Million in Cuts

2010-01-23T17:50:00.014-05:00

Ranelle Lang, Superintendent of Greeley Colorado District 6 School system, has proposed that all department heads produce multiple budget scenarios preparing for cuts of anywhere between eight, ten, to twelve percent or more according to a letter distributed by email (so much for Ms. Lang's personal touch and consideration) to District 6 employees.

Strength is what we need locally over the next several months and even years. We have significant challenges. The State of Colorado, reeling from the recession, must severely reduce the amount of money for K-12 education. These cuts will result in us having to pare $9 million to $16 million from our budget for the 2010-11 school year.

Have those department heads been given any guidance on what to trim? Is the least favorite employee to go? Do they not see the need for this program or that? Out it goes. Who is Captain of this ship anyhow? Where is the strategic planning for the budget cuts? Is the public going to be allowed to determine cuts? "Let's lose educating all those poor and brown people because they are, well, poor, and brown." What a recipe for disaster.

What Ms. Lang doesn't mention is any culpability on District 6's administrative watch. Relying on the fact that people assume all school districts are facing cuts is not quite the same as illustrating the depth of the problem and the history of the problem in D6 schools. Where are the reserves Ms. Lang? In economic good times reserves are created to be spent to soften the blows in economic downturns. Will you be voluntarily taking a twenty percent pay reduction for your own part? Will Mr. Eads, the custodial worker turned manager of operations turned administrative mouthpiece, be turning over his spacious and elegant official digs to save facility costs? Will the administrative offices be closed and the paper-pushers be given a seat in the back of an overcrowded classroom? Will the expansive payroll department be moved to a smaller, less costly, outside facility?

My beef isn't that Colorado is facing a downturn, although Ms. Lang would be well advised to understand the nature and trends in the recession before writing about it, it is that not once, in this letter or any other pseudo communication does the primary mission of the District rule the pages. All signs point to the fact that the Board and Administration in place do not have the skills to be managing a sinking ship. A fully floating ship might be fine under their direction but the 'Shari Lewis Lamb-Chop approach' to fixing this situation is really hard to stomach.

Education. It is about education. Education is the goal here folks. Money is the tool to achieve the goal but the goal must still be met.

Will jobs be lost and will that impact the surrounding economy? Of course it will. It doesn't take a college degree to figure that out. But it does take some intellect, some integrity, and a whole lot of spine to ensure that the cuts made impact the outcome of the educational integrity of the school district in the least intrusive way. And it takes even more character than that to admit that D6 has created, with poor management choices, a much bigger problem than any other school district faces. The voters of Greeley shouldn't escape being chastised either.

This is what Ms. Lang isn't discussing--educational outcomes. She is discussing people. She is discussing shared sacrifice between the adults and she is discussing ways for the community to help balance the checkbook. She isn't discussing educational impacts. She isn't discussing the fact that each student in this district is going to pay a price much bigger over time than any adult will be likely to pay.

District 6 already performs dismally. What is 20% less efficient than dismal?

Ms. Lang needs to be challenged to prove she is worth the money paid. Stand up to the crisis. Demand that educational value be delivered. Hold classes on the field if needed. Go camp on the doorstep of the legislators. Send the kids in who will be paying the price of these cuts for years if not decades. Let them march on Denver. Make them visible so they too can be counted.

Extend the school district into red tape and then let the State explain why it demands the board fire you when you are doing your job of educating the public--and defend yourself with that fact. Is the State really going to subsidize those oil & energy company interests when it has education bills to pay? It is extreme but then again so is the situation and the voters of Greeley just don't get it. They are looking at the checkbook online rather than the objective. They are mad because the checkbook doesn't balance!

Who cares about educational quality?

Meanwhile, behind the curtains, the job is simply not being done--seeing to the education of the youth in this district even when the tools to do the job are not being provided. Get a backbone and make EDUCATION the priority. Do something.

Do anything besides disappear from view and write comfort letters while the executioner runs the guillotine 24/7. Superintendent is a leadership position. The job is to see to the education of the youth and to communicate needs to the community in a way that is clear, concise, and delivers an accurate assessment of needs and brings home the bacon. The community and the State's job is to fund the means to make it happen. The Board's job is to see Superintendents have the tools to do their own job. Put the consequences where they belong on these groups and not upon the backs of the very students without resources in the first place to fight the political battles.

We can fund the military complex but not education? We can fund prisons but not education? We can fund Wal-Mart but not education? What is wrong with this picture? Leaders need to point to the failings of the system not be a jockey on the horse that dissembles the education system for the underclasses. And sometimes it takes a whole lot of courage to stand up and point to the real priorities.

And, by the way, it would also be nice if Ms. Lang attended to the job in person instead of distant, touchy-feeling letters of heart felt consideration as heads of your organization are about to cut off other heads with the axe. Be real. Look the people in the eye and tell them that education is the most important thing to provide when cuts come calling. Look them in the eye and tell them that you truly feel for them while you spend your own corporate salary and Mr. Eads gives operational management suggestions for cuts that will effectively slaughter what remains of the quality of education in this district.

"I am also certain about this: Together we will figure this out. We have no choice given the cards we have been dealt."

Really? From behind a desk you are going to develop camaraderie with those who will suffer? Have you talked to the kids that are about to be thrown into larger class sizes, lose their favorite teachers, or will be turned away by their college of choice because they need remedial coursework just to be accepted? Have you commiserated with those teachers who had a contract forced down their throats or did you send Mr. Eads to do the dirty work? Go to the Greeley Education Association meetings and face the music like a professional should and bring Mr. Eads.

Okay, I'm done with this rant. You asked for my input Ms. Lang and I have given it. In the same cold impersonal way you've delivered your messages. In writing.

The Guillotine is Rolled Out For Greeley Schools District 6

2010-01-14T18:44:00.007-05:00

Greeley's District 6 Administration and Board are in the process of organizing spring cleaning. Schools are being scheduled to be shut. Cameron will see its head roll. Jefferson is being merged. Just what that means I am not certain. It appears to mean that all the alternative students and "problems" will be stuffed into one school. Cuts are coming, to the best of my knowledge, to every area except the top run of administrators and to the middle-class white schools like Christa McAuliffe Elementary.

The kids who need the most attention, require specialized help, are lower performers in general, some from homes with fewer resources--rounded up and stuffed into one facility. What could go wrong? The newest teachers in, with the freshest skill set, may be the first out.

In the meantime it isn't clear how extensive operational cuts will be. The Operations Manager has been busy making recommendations and it appears the board is following his lead regardless of the impact on the quality of learning. Still no public appearance by Ms. Lang and her $200 thousand plus a year income.

Teachers have, or were, wearing black shirts to represent the day the Board enforced a contract upon them.

The local teachers union appears to be either overwhelmed or under performing. The mainstream media isn't covering it from a teacher's angle. The concept that the Union has been broken by the Board certainly is real from my own perspective. The public isn't likely to come to the side of the teachers when they have just dumped the plea for more public funds down the drain. And Greeley citizens as a whole do not seem willing to put pressure on the administration to make cuts across the board rather than to focus on some demographics that are not popular.

In general, it is pretty clear that the youth of Greeley are not a priority for the taxpayers. And, in my opinion, it is pretty clear that the Board, Ms. Lang, and Mr. Eads are using the opportunity to clean house. Heads on the chopping block will be the newly hired, political enemies, and any job where a highly skilled person is drawing a realistic salary and can be replaced by a common "Joe".

Of course the State is demanding cuts and probably demanding that a plan be developed and submitted to the State. Mr. Ritter, a pseudo-Democrat, is focused on the Republican agenda for the State budget even though he has decided not to be elected. We can only hope that someone will be reviewing this plan that has the guts to stand up for what is best for the education of the students.

You don't have to be a genius to figure out that if the State removes a million dollars or more from the local budget that it would serve to take out jobs which reduce incoming taxes even further which grows the problem instead of helping resolution. In the meantime while expenditures are being reduced the number of students requiring an education doesn't change. They are all still there at the doors waiting for their opportunity to enter the adult world workforce with a half-baked education and compete with other communities for real wage paying jobs.

All in all it is depressing. The future of Greeley has just been flushed down the toilet and the public doesn't seem too distressed or too informed. I think it is time to call in the State. It is time for parents to go sit outside the Governor's door. It is time to take the students along too and show them the political process and how it works when the government doesn't pay attention to the needs of the future and/or is willing to force certain segments of the population, without as much political power, to bare the brunt of poor ideology, planning, and the cuts that are the natural consequence thereof. The Greeley District 6 Administration and Board is obviously not up to the task, overwhelmed, and willing to make cuts not in the best interest of education but in the best interests of what an Operations Manager recommends. The top level administrator isn't willing to face the public or the bulk of the district's employees. The cuts have already been politicized and are likely to continue in that direction.

Just where is Ms. Lang the District Superintendent? Doesn't the public deserve to meet her face to face and have her explain her reasoning and position. After all Ms. Lang, so it seems, will be retaining her job and her contract. Shouldn't Ms. Lang have to look the teachers, staff, and operations people in the face and explain to them why they have been selected to have their careers pulled out from under them? Ms. Lang should earn those big bucks and take on the big responsibilities--regardless of how hard they may be.

The one advantage, in all this mess, possible is that the people, to the best of my knowledge, who have been hired in the past for low wages based on ideology without the appropriate skills for the job, advanced on the basis of politics rather than educational best interests, could be forced to leave. The "good-old-boy network" could be dissembled in mass firings and rehirings only, unfortunately, the "good-old-boys" are doing the firing and rehiring.

Hence the call for the State to step in.

So the picture I paint here isn't pretty. The subject isn't getting the media and public coverage it deserves. The local fish-wrap is just an extended arm of the public relations sector of the District. Of course to be fair there isn't a good solution to be had and times are tough. But the cuts and changes are being driven less by the best interests of education than by political interests and naive extremist chopping block-watch-the-heads-roll maneuvering. That, or it is being driven by sheer panic and a lack of consensus on what to do. These administrators are over their heads and don't have the skills to deal with the situation in a fair and objective way. Special hires need to be made who have the background skills and objectivity for educational purposes.

Hence the call for the State to step in, again.

Which all leads me back to the supposition, how many times can I say it, it is time for the State to come in and take over the management of Greeley Colorado's infamous District 6. For the sake of the students, the classes in Greeley without political power, the future of Greeley itself, and also for the sake of the taxpayers. Somebody needs to do the real job, the whole job, and do it with the least politics and the maximum professionalism.

And where is Ms. Lang?

Howard Dean's Recommendation for the Current Senate Reform Bill

2009-12-17T10:41:00.004-05:00

This comes from today's Washington Post Editorial by Dean. Oddly I couldn't find any share links on the article or I would have just posted it to Facebook. So I am putting it up on Greeleyville instead. The commentary I read initially covering Dean's role was a bit snippy. The impression I got was that the writer held that President Obama had stiffed Dean and left him out of the cherry roles in the administration. Therefore Dean is now playing the role of rogue liberal and can rally people to not back the bill rather than towing the party line.

I am not sure I buy into this analysis. It may be an odd concept but perhaps Dean is just stating the reality of how many people feel. I don't see it as a particular political strategy but it could certainly have those connotations to the inside circle. That is the problem with politics. It doesn't really matter whether the intent is there for Dean. If those "in-the-know" game players think the intent is there then they manifest it on the rest of us and the painting of a controversial relationship between Obama and Dean becomes our perception as well. A new reality so to speak. The real strategy, in my mind, is the need to create tension or increase tension when it already exists because that is what sells the news.

Here is my favorite paragraph from Dean's editorial. The whole thing is rather short and sweet but I thought this paragraph poignant. I hadn't realized that the preexisting conditions segment had been used for gain as well. Here is the link to the entire piece.

"Real health-care reform is supposed to eliminate discrimination based on preexisting conditions. But the legislation allows insurance companies to charge older Americans up to three times as much as younger Americans, pricing them out of coverage. The bill was supposed to give Americans choices about what kind of system they wanted to enroll in. Instead, it fines Americans if they do not sign up with an insurance company, which may take up to 30 percent of your premium dollars and spend it on CEO salaries -- in the range of $20 million a year -- and on return on equity for the company's shareholders. Few Americans will see any benefit until 2014, by which time premiums are likely to have doubled. In short, the winners in this bill are insurance companies; the American taxpayer is about to be fleeced with a bailout in a situation that dwarfs even what happened at AIG."

Health Reform: Senator Joe Lieberman Skewered by Ann Telnaes

2009-12-16T15:40:00.007-05:00

Thus far, the best indication of Senator Joe, Let-the-Poor-Die, Lieberman's take on what he would like the health care bill to look like comes from a searing Washington Post Cartoon done by Ann Telnaes. She disembowels the Senator using his own words and a few well placed pen lines dancing to modern technology's tune. I've posted the link to the cartoon below along with Ann's Bio on the Washington Post.

Senator Joe Lieberman skewered by Ann Telnaes

Ann Telnaes, who was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning in 2001, has published her work in newspapers and magazines around the world. Her cartoons have been exhibited at the Library of Congress, in Paris and in Jerusalem and have been collected in two books, "Humor's Edge" and "Dick.

On the Huffington Post--the best quote I've seen in print yet although I heard something very similar expressed by our own Ed Craig.

If I wanted Joe Lieberman to write health care reform, I would have voted for John McCain.

Later in the post, this tidbit of information

The Trojan Horse at the center of the Senate's health care package is the mandate that people without health insurance be forced to purchase it from private health insurance companies or pay a fine. And the dirty secret of the package is that the price they will be paying is quite high - like up to 10% of income. So the way that we move along the path towards greater coverage is that the taxpayers and poor and working class people pay more to the insurance companies. What part of this is the "good"?

I haven't seen the 10% data in a first source document anywhere but if that is true just imagine Santa Claus coming down the chimney for the insurance industry with 10% of all working class American paychecks in his sack for all the good little greedy toads and toadies in Insurance Land. I'd quit and take my blanket and lie on the steps of the Senate before I'll be shackled to an insurance company, private or nonprofit.

Good grief, both France and Britain have dared to work together to fine and limit their banking industry and America can't even find the spine to tell the Insurance Companies they have to compete to survive? I think the American Senate has been paying Lucy van Pelt for advice.

In the meantime Howard Dean is calling in an Op-Ed piece on the Washington Post for a No-Vote on the now worthless reform bill and for the Senate to start over again. On a Dr. Dean site there is a form for submitting a supportive statement to the tune of

Give America a choice. We support healthcare reform that allows individual Americans to choose either a universally available public healthcare option like Medicare or for-profit private insurance. A public option is the only way to guarantee healthcare for all Americans and its inclusion is non- negotiable.

From Susie Madrak on the CrooksandLiar's website

WASHINGTON -- Howard Dean said a public health insurance option is more important than bipartisanship, and that Democrats should pass health-care legislation that includes the option with 51 votes if necessary.
Dean added that Democrats should have "no intention" of working with Republicans if it's not the strongest possible legislation that could be passed with a simple majority.
"If Republicans want to shill for insurance companies, then we should do it with 51 votes," Dean said during a news conference at the first day of the liberal America's Future Now! conference here.
Dean, though, also praised what he called President Obama's "realist" approach to trying to pass health care reform.

If you want or need a quick lesson on how the "media" can get their own private agenda across without a word just take a look at this site and the picture of Dean the site has chosen to put up discussing his views on health reform.

Speaking of the media, here is a nice clip from the White House (Obama) on the House bill passed this summer. Note the words "...all Americans..." not "SOME" Americans. What happened to your Senate President Obama?

"I thank Chairmen Rangel, Waxman, and Miller for their hard work on this bill that fundamentally reforms the health care system. As this process moves forward, I look forward to continuing to work with all House members in ensuring this legislation helps all Americans and plays an essential role in reducing deficits and bringing fiscal sustainability to our nation."

Searching on Thomas, Library of Congress, I came across the text for December 15, 2009 that I have posted at the end of the blog. But before I post this blog-o-information clips, I thought I'd share my own poignant morning discovery. I went into Fort Collins to visit the Harmony Campus Lab to get a routine blood test ($150) done for my doctor's appointment tomorrow. I was told at the receptionist's desk I'd have to show a photo ID to the nurse. The people in front of me were told the same thing.

Excuse me? This is not a plane. I haven't read any terrorist threats lately to blow up Poudre Valley anything. It is a place of healthcare where people go to be cared for and to gain comfort. It is a place where people who take the Hippocratic oath work. It is not your friendly, give me your data, your ID, your social security number, your health care history, your fingerprints--so I can give it to the authorities to make sure you are going to put in your 10% to the Christmas Fund for the Insurance Elites type of place. Doctors do not swear to treat people only if they pass the photo identification test. If don't have an ID do you not pass go? Do you not get medical treatment? Maybe they can just do a skin test to see if you are brown and legal. If the medical center is really nice they can lay down a doormat in the foyer and allow the really sick and undocumented to die on a nice comfortable mat. Or the homeless, take your pick.

Really, while my rhetoric may be a bit extreme, the privacy invasion is getting out of hand. Do we surrender our individual identities in the name of efficiency? We didn't surrender it in the face of Redcoats, the Confederacy, or the Nazis. Are we going to do it under the guise of healthcare reform? I sure hope not. Electronic records may be a step towards efficiency but there are some things that are just not for sale in America. And never should be.

Here is the text page of amendments. I am not sure why I am posting this here. Maybe I am imagining that there is some one out there who can decipher and make sense of this process. From my read through it looks like the Senate is making a mountain of regulations designed to control the initial development of what the press have referred to as the "nonprofit option". This option was batted about to negate the need for a true public option. I wrote on this topic a couple of months ago suggesting it was a really bad way to produce quality care but a great way to ensure that private insurance"and medical care organizations would face little competition or reform. Here it looks like they are trying to develop the structure for a model to then be used nationwide. I could be wrong.

I repeat... I could be wrong. So if there is anyone reading with a clearer understanding of the process of amending Senate bills and you want to take a shot at it--please feel free to correct my interpretation.

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS -- (Senate - December 15, 2009)
``(2) EXCEPTIONS.--The following rules shall apply to a proposal transmitted pursuant to paragraph (1):
[Page: S13274] GPO's PDF
``(A) RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACHIEVING TARGET.--The requirement under subsection (c)(2)(A)(i) shall not apply.
``(B) REQUIRED INFORMATION.--The proposal shall not include--
``(i) recommendations described in subsection (c)(2)(A)(i), pursuant to subsection (c)(3)(B)(i); or
``(ii) an actuarial opinion by the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services certifying that the proposal meets the requirements of subsection (c)(2)(A)(i), pursuant to subsection (c)(3)(B)(iii);
``(C) CONTINGENT SECRETARIAL PROPOSAL.--The Secretary shall not submit a proposal if the Board fails to submit a proposal pursuant to subsection (c)(5).
``(D) CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION.--
``(i) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (d)(3) shall be applied by substituting `subsection (c)(2)(C)' for `subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2)'.
``(ii) Subparagraphs (D) and (E) of subsection (d)(3) and subsection (d)(4)(B)(v) shall be applied by requiring a simple majority rather than three-fifths of the Members duly chosen and sworn.
``(iii) Subsection (d)(4)(B)(iv) shall not apply.
``(iv) Subsection (d)(4)(C)(v)(II) shall be applied by substituting `subsection (c)(2)(C)' for `subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2)'.
``(v) Subsection (d)(4)(E)(iv)(II) shall be applied by substituting `subsection (c)(2)(C)' for `subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2)'.
``(E) SECRETARIAL IMPLEMENTATION.--Subsection (e) shall not apply and the Secretary shall not implement the recommendations contained in the proposal unless the Secretary otherwise has the authority to implement such recommendations.
``(h) Annual Report With Recommendations With Respect to the Private Sector.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than July 1, 2014, and January 15, 2015, and annually thereafter, the Board shall submit to Congress, the Secretary, and the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission a report that includes recommendations on--
``(A) requirements under the program under this title (or requirements included in the proposal submitted under this section in the year); and
``(B) in the case of any report submitted in a year after a determination year (beginning with determination year 2017) in which the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has made a determination described in subclause (I) or (II) of subsection (c)(3)(A)(ii), other requirements determined appropriate by the Board;
that should be included in the requirements established under section 1311(c) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for a health plan to be certified as a qualified health plan, such as requirements that improve the health care delivery system and health outcomes (including by promoting integrated care, care coordination, prevention and wellness, and quality and efficiency), decrease health care spending, and other appropriate improvements
``(2) INCORPORATION INTO CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.--
``(A) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary shall review the recommendations contained in the report submitted to the Secretary by the Board under paragraph (1). The Secretary may, if determined appropriate, incorporate such recommendations into the requirements for certification under such section 1311(c).
``(B) REPORT TO CONGRESS.--Not later than December 31, 2014, and June 15, 2015, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the application of subparagraph (A). Such report shall include, with respect to each recommendation contained in a report submitted by the Board in that year, a description of whether or not the Secretary incorporated the recommendation into the requirements for certification under such section 1311(c), and if not, the reasons why.
``(3) MACPAC.--The Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission shall--
``(A) review whether or not recommendations contained in a report submitted to the Commission by the Board under paragraph (1) would improve the Medicaid program under title XIX and the Children's Health Insurance Program under title XXI if implemented under such programs; and
``(B) include in the Commission's annual report to Congress the results of such review.''.

SA 3241. Mr. CARPER (for himself, Mr. Conrad, and Mrs. Shaheen) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2786 proposed by Mr. Reid (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Harkin) to the bill H.R. 3590, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 722, after line 20, insert the following:
SEC. 3016. INTEGRATED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM COLLABORATION INITIATIVE.
(a) In General.--In order to improve health care quality and reduce costs, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall develop, in consultation with major integrated health systems that have consistently demonstrated high quality and low cost (as determined by the Secretary and verified by a third party) a collaboration initiative (referred to in this section as ``the Collaborative''). The Collaborative shall develop an exportable model of optimal health care delivery to apply value-based measurement, integrated information technology infrastructure, standard care pathways, and population-based payment models, to measurably improve health care quality, outcomes, and patient satisfaction and achieve cost savings.
(b) Participation.--Prior to January 1, 2010, the Secretary shall determine 5 initial participants who will form the Collaborative and at least 6 additional participants who will join the Collaborative beginning in the fourth year that the Collaborative is in effect.
(1) INITIAL PARTICIPANTS.--Initial participants selected by the Secretary shall meet the following criteria:
(A) Be integrated health systems organized for the purpose of providing health care services.
(B) Have demonstrated a record of providing high value health care for at least the 5 previous years, as determined by the Secretary in consultation with the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
(C) Agree to participate in the Medicare shared savings program under section 1899 of the Social Security Act, as added by section 3022, the National pilot program on payment bundling under section 1866D of such Act, as added by section 3023, or a program under the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation under section 1115A of such Act, as added by section 3021.
(D) Any additional criteria specified by the Secretary.
(2) ADDITIONAL PARTICIPANTS.--Beginning January 1, 2013, the Secretary shall select 6 or more additional participants who represent diverse geographic areas and are situated in areas of differing population densities who agree to comply with the guidelines, processes, and requirements set forth for the Collaborative. Such additional participants shall meet the following additional criteria:
(A) Be organized for the provision of patient medical care.
(B) Be capable of implementing infrastructure and health care delivery modifications necessary to enhance health care quality and efficiency, as determined by the Secretary in consultation with the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
(C) The participant's cost and intensity of care do not meet the definition of high value health care.
(D) Agree to participate in the Medicare shared savings program under section 1899 of the Social Security Act, as added by section 3022, the National pilot program on payment bundling under section 1866D of such Act, as added by section 3023, or a program under the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation under section 1115A of such Act, as added by section 3021.
(E) The participant would benefit from such participation (as determined by the Secretary, based on the likelihood that the participant would improve its performance under section 1886(p) of the Social Security Act, as added by section 3008, section 1886(q) of such Act, as added by section 3025, or any similar program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act).
(3) ADDITIONAL CRITERIA.--In addition to the criteria described in paragraphs (1) and (2), the participants in the Collaborative shall meet the following criteria:
(A) Agree to report on quality, cost, and efficiency in such form, manner, and frequency as specified by the Secretary.
(B) Provide care to patients enrolled in the Medicare program.
(C) Agree to contribute to a best practices network and website, that is maintained by the Collaborative for sharing strategies on quality improvement, care coordination, efficiency, and effectiveness.
(D) Use patient-centered processes of care, including those that emphasize patient and caregiver involvement in shared decision-making for treatment decisions.
(E) Meet other criteria determined to be appropriate by the Secretary.
(c) Collaborative Initiative.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--Beginning January 1, 2010, the Collaborative shall begin a 2 year development phase in which initial participants share the quantitative and qualitative methods through which they have developed high value health care followed by a dissemination of that learning model to additional participants of the Collaborative.
(2) COORDINATING MEMBER.--In consultation with the Secretary, the Collaborative shall select a coordinating member organization (hereafter identified as the Coordinating Organization) of the Collaborative.
(3) QUALIFICATIONS.--The Coordinating Organization will have in place a comprehensive Medicare database and possess experience using and analyzing Medicare data to measure health care utilization, cost, and variation. The Coordinating Organization shall be responsible for reporting to the Secretary as required and for any other requirements deemed necessary by the Secretary.
(4) RESPONSIBILITIES.--The Coordinating Member shall--
(A) lead efforts to develop each aspect of the learning model;
[Page: S13275] GPO's PDF
(B) organize efforts to disseminate the learning model for high value health care, including educating participant institutions; and
(C) provide administrative, technical, accounting, reporting, organizational and infrastructure support needed to carry out the goals of the Collaborative.
(5) DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNING MODEL.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--Initial participants in the Collaborative shall work together to develop a learning model based on their experience that includes a reliance on evidence based care that emphasizes quality and practice techniques that emphasize efficiency, joint development and implementation of health information technology, introduction of clinical microsystems of care, shared decision-making, outcomes and measurement, and the establishment of an e-learning distributive network, which have been put into practice at their respective institutions.
(B) RESPONSIBILITIES.--The Coordinating Member shall do the following:
(i) Partner with initial participants to comprehensively understand each institution's contribution to providing value-based health care.
(ii) Provide and measure value-based health care in a manner that ensures that measures are aligned with current measures approved by a consensus-based organization, such as the National Quality Forum, or other measures as determined appropriate by the Secretary, while also incorporating patient self-reported status and outcomes.
(iii) Create a replicable and scalable infrastructure for common measurement of value-based care that can be broadly disseminated across the Collaborative and other institutions.
(iv) Implement care pathways for common conditions using standard measures for assessment across institutions, targeting high variation and high cost conditions, including but not limited to--
(I) acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and angioplasty;
(II) coronary artery bypass graft surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention;
(III) hip or knee replacement;
(IV) spinal surgery; and
(V) care for chronic diseases including, but not limited to, diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure.
(v) Deploy and disseminate the comprehensive learning model across initial participant institutions, achieving improvements in care delivery and lowering costs, and demonstrating the portability and viability of the processes.
(6) ADDITIONAL BEST PRACTICES.--As additional methods of improving health care quality and efficiency are identified by members of the Collaborative or by other institutions, Initial Participants in the Collaborative shall incorporate those practices into the learning model.
(d) Implementation of Learning Model.--Beginning January 1, 2013, as additional participants are selected by the Secretary, Initial Participants in the Collaborative shall actively engage in the deployment of the learning model to educate each additional participant in the common conditions that have been identified.
(1) DISSEMINATION OF LEARNING MODEL.--Dissemination methods shall include but not be limited to the following methods:
(A) Specialized teams deployed by the Initial Participants to teach and facilitate implementation on site.
(B) Distance-learning, taking advantage of latest interactive technologies.
(C) On-line, fully accessible repositories of shared learning and information related to best practices.
(D) Advanced population health information technology models.
(2) EVALUATION OF PARTICIPANTS.--
(A) IN GENERAL.--Evaluation of initial participants shall be based on documented success in meeting quality and efficiency measurements. Specific statistically valid measures of evaluation shall be determined by the Secretary.
(B) PERFORMANCE TARGETS.--The Secretary shall develop performance targets for participants. Performance targets developed under the preceding sentence shall be based on whether participants have improved their performance under section 1886(p) of the Social Security Act, as added by section 3008, section 1886(q) of such Act, as added by section 3025, or any similar program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (as determined by the Secretary).
(e) Measurement of Learning Model.--Participants shall implement techniques under the comprehensive learning model. The Secretary shall determine whether such implementation improves quality and efficiency, including cost savings relative to baseline spending for the common conditions specified under subsection (c)(5)(B)(iv) and quality measures endorsed by a consensus-based organization or otherwise chosen by the Secretary. The Collaborative shall prepare a report annually on each participant's performance with respect to the efficiency and quality measurements established by the Secretary. Such report shall be submitted to the Secretary and Congress and shall be made publicly available.
(f) Administrative Payment.--For purposes of carrying out this section, there are authorized to be appropriated $228,000,000, to remain available until expended. Amounts appropriated under the preceding sentence shall be distributed in the following manner:
(1) The Coordinating Organization shall receive $10,000,000 per year for program development related to the Collaborative, including for health information technology and other infrastructure, project evaluations, analysis, and measurement, compliance, auditings and other reporting. Not less than $5,000,000 of such funds shall be provided for education and training, including for support for the establishment of training teams for the Collaborative, to assist in the integration of new health information technology, best practices of care delivery, microsystems of care delivery, and a distributive e-learning network for the Collaborative.
(2) Each Initial Participant shall receive $4,000,000 per year for internal program development for health information technology and other infrastructure, education and training, project evaluations, analysis, and measurement, and compliance, auditing, and other reporting.
(3) Beginning in 2013, the Secretary may provide funding to additional participants in the Collaborative in an amount not to exceed $4,000,000 per participant per year under the same use guidelines as apply to the Initial Participants.
(g) Continuation or Expansion.--
(1) TERMINATION.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Collaborative shall terminate on the date that is 6 years after the date on which the Collaborative is established.
(2) EXPANSION.--The Secretary may continue or expand the Collaborative if the Collaborative is consistently exceeding quality standards and is not increasing spending under the program.
(h) Termination.--The Secretary may terminate an agreement with a participating organization under the Collaborative if such organization consistently failed to meet quality standards in the fourth year or any subsequent year of the Collaborative
(i) Reports.--
(1) PERFORMANCE RESULTS REPORTS.--The Secretary shall provide such data as is necessary for the Collaborative to measure the efficacy of the Collaborative and facilitate regular reporting on spending and cost savings results relative to a value-based program initiative.
(2) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.--Not later than 2 years after the date the first agreement is entered into under this section, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to Congress and make publicly available a report on the authority granted to the Secretary to carry out the Collaborative under this section. Each report shall address the impact of the use of such authority on expenditures for, access to, and quality of,

Senator Lieberman Takes Reform Out of Health Care Bill

2009-12-15T19:49:00.006-05:00

Gee thanks Joe. What a swell guy.

All things I am hearing and reading point to the fact that Senator Joe Lieberman has gutted the "reform" from the health care bill in the Senate. Senator Harry Reid turned into a puddle at Lieberman's feet. I'm digging for more information and will post it as soon as I come up with something substantial to post.

If I were in the other Democratic Senators shoes I'd vote against the bill. It is gutless. Worthless from its original intent.

A Mood is Rising in America's Underclasses

2009-12-13T08:40:00.007-05:00

Sixth grade gave me one of the loves of my life, history. I had a superb teacher in a small rural school. He traded his history book for a coach's cap during part of each day. But he certainly didn't mind mingling the two. He'd round us up, all eighteen students, and send us out on a sunny day to the green playground field for a game of "History Baseball". It could just as easily been known as the "Geek's Revenge". The kids normally chosen last during recess to be on a team we often clamored over and fought over when it came down to the fact that the only way to score a home run would be if one could name all of Britain's King Henry's eight wives and their religious and genetic heritage. I found simply amazing how fast political alliances could change in the twelve year-old's world.

I am reminded of this sensation of change by the political climate emerging in America these days.

Years after my sixth grade love affair began I found myself sitting in college absorbing every history course I could cram into my loaded schedule. I found a good history course to be a wonderful stress reliever for the pressure of college. But I was forever trying to fathom how the America I was growing up in had been the same America which bred McCarthyism, school segregation, and the likes of the Big Five oilmen and the banking crisis in the early part of the century.

It didn't seem like that much time had passed yet the society I lived in had passed through all these troubled times. I didn't see any scars. Where were the scars? Did people just forget? Did time heal all? Was it real or did the victors in history just have their way with the retelling? How could it be possible that my parents, grandparents, and people I passed every day on the street had carried such hatred in their hearts to have allowed these things to occur? What happened to those democratic ideals? Didn't the government work for the people? After all I had been raised to the standard that all human beings in America had this gift of equality bestowed upon them at birth. I was told that over and over and over again in school. I not only took that literally I took it to heart.

Yet, here, was evidence of time in which the world seemingly turned upside down and it wasn't so long ago.

Thirty years later I am finally resolving how societal norms and expectations can shift so rapidly. How a period of time can be defined by a beginning crisis and the ending result of the remedy of the crisis. This is how you title a chapter in a history book.

Suddenly I find myself looking backwards over my shoulder and realizing why, in each society, there is a certain period of time known as the "Golden Age". I thought it was just my art history professor's conjuring up his favorite artworks and tagging them as superior. So what if Rome declined thereafter--it still made great art for many years.

For the greater part of my life, by random chance of birth it would seem, I have lived through a time of great stability in America and, comparatively, one of peace. That time has ended. The "Golden Age" has peaked and what comes next appears to be in the hands of fate and in the simmering consciousness of the American underclasses.

Now that this particular era has ended, I see some signs that America appears to be going down that not-so-gilded path towards the giant salad bowl looking to toss it up into the air. The salad, so it would appear, has taken those years of relative stability, and decided to settle itself into fixed strata. The lettuce leaves are all stacked at the bottom with the tomatoes and cucumbers being squished in the middle whilst the chevre crumbles, bacon bits, and salad dressing are heaped on the top. A distinctively medieval European recipe. Not exactly what many people in this country expected to find on its table of feast.

I read an interesting article describing the mood in universities around the country. The basic suggestion was that students were full of jubilee about the idea of change coming to this country when Obama had been elected. They were one with many of us who felt that the system had expunged the clog in the lines and eliminated the need to detour around the corruption and the ruination of the concept of the rule of law. Sure a lot of work had to be done but surely the tools were at hand. The voters had spoken.

However the special interests, the elite, the corporate were not interested in the commentary the common man and woman had laid at their feet.

Fantastic I thought to myself after hearing of the student interest! After my second stint in college for an advanced degree a few years ago I had become dismayed at the passive, commercialized, attitudes of my fellow students in class. All much younger than I, whizzes with the electronic gadgets calculating in their hands, they tended to ask less questions, never raise an eyebrow, whined and complained when too much complexity and history was brought into a subject being discussed, and just mechanically went about having professor's zip open their heads and stuff data inside and zip it closed. They smiled. They picked up their paper at the end of their incarceration and went on to claim their birthright--a job. Not just any job but one that paid money and required minimal physical labor.

Comparatively to my earlier stint in college fifteen years ago this was rather like watching a a Twilight episode called the Stepford Students. One I wouldn't care to see again.

It was business school. The Stepford approach to capitalistic indoctrination. Maximum efficiency. ROI the school mascot.

When I first made the decision to go after my MBA I had called up my Alma Mater and spoke with the Commandant in charge of the Business School. "Could I write my own program with a dual major? Business and Ethics." A stern "No" came the reply. I sucked up the wounds of naivete and entered the program regardless. But I digress into the reality of the dark spaces behind the stage curtain.

The article I read went on about how the financial crisis we are facing invokes the need for reworking and remaking content for the university classroom. Ultimately a professor disclosed his opinion about how his students had grown cynical over the past year upon realizing that the institutions in America are not interested in changing.

Corporations have studied and prepared for this battle.

I read a great book in the 1990's recommended to me by an early-entry triple-scoop kind of technology whiz geek. Who, come to think of it, worked for a Texas based insurance company. One of the big five. The book "The Sun, the Genome, and the Internet" frequently gets panned still in reviews by reviewers with less geek on their lapels than my friend's. But these reviews miss the big picture of the book.

The book outlines how the infrastructure of western civilization, long reliant on coal, oil, and the auto industry to sustain their economy was about to undergo a radical transformation from these outdated sources of infrastructure and technology to, you guessed it, using the sun, the genome, and the Internet.

The student of history will easily point out that these cycles replay themselves over and over again throughout all civilizations and human population centers.

The importance of this shift, grossly understated in this book when taken into political terms, can only be described, less than adequately, as enormous. Our grandchildren and their children for years will be reading about this period of time where America attempted to shift power gears and ended up blowing out the clutch. The powers in charge of these aging technologies were not quite ready to be put to bed yet and wanted to take out one last hurrah of final profiteering before the economy shifted. Hence, I'll argue, one of the reasons for backing the Bush Cheney Iraq war. Also the fight over health care.

The shift, for the American economy, got delayed for ten years--thank you to all the greedy profiteering self-interested executives and investors living in their castles on the hill and watching the peasants toil in the fields everyday looking up longingly for their opportunity to climb the ivory steps to their own gilded apartments in the high towers above those with "less".

Now here we are, the lower classes in America, left with the proverbial mess after the big party and taped to our besotted foreheads is the taxpayers' bill for cleaning it up. The gum crushed into the pavement, the litter strewn about here and there, people maimed and laying on the curb, the panties wrapped around streetlights, and all those little annoying party favors. Obama crushed and weighted down with the responsibility for coming up with a plan to clean it all up. The nobility of course demanding, and receiving, payment for showing the lower-classes how to party.

"Thanks for the good time. Don't call home when the baby arrives."

Isn't it funny how sometimes that one crucial, beautifully snapped, public tableau, like the party scene, can implant itself into the brains of an entirely unsuspecting generation... and fester. College is a special place for the incubating "Festers". Hence underfunding college for the less-than-elite-legacy players is a great idea for those specially interested in staying in power.

Fester like a wound improperly cleaned. Fester like a canker sore on a tongue so it hurts every time flicked. Fester to irritation like the pimple rubbed into a boil. Until suddenly the thought of the wound takes over everything and explodes into the consciousness so ripe and ugly that nothing else matters until it is cured.

Now I am beginning to understand, you see, how those periods of strife appeared within my naive ideal of America. Now I am beginning to see how an idea can exist in the unspoken consciousness of people but never emerge until the moment is ripe. Now I understand how political dynamics can change just as rapidly as they did in the minor experiment of sixth grade politics. Seemingly overnight when placed against the scale of human history.

The working class is restless in its slumber. The real question is whether or not it will awake. The students are becoming disquieted. The wind blowing across America's underclasses is not as temperate as it was yesterday. Now there is an air blowing that we have all been used. Duped. Taken advantage of. Our country seized by the powerful and wealthy and used to advance the big national corporate plunder. We, the common and average citizen, have been the mules to curry large amounts of wealth into the hands of the "handlers". The shadow thought of equality and democracy just a hand puppet figurine drawn on the wall to elicit cooperation.

How long will this brew take to boil? Or will it just allow a lid to be put on the wicked pot of thievery and placed back on the stove to simmer? It has happened before. The robber barons have been clocked. The peasants have taken back their country and reignited the idea of democratic equality. History has repeated itself more than once.

The only question is how to right the wrongs in a way which also upholds the integrity of the American ideal. This to me is what the real underlying fight for the public option in health care reform is all about. It isn't about the budget. It isn't about the Democrats versus the Republicans. It is about who owns this country.

The people or the corporate elite.

Time will tell. History will be written. Someday some teacher will ask his students the home run question. "What is the defining moment of American Democracy?"

The entire American public is about to learn if the investment being made into the public education system pays off and how that question will be answered now and in the future. The power of the vote is mightier than the sword. I learned that in sixth grade. Hopefully other students did too.

Healthcare Reform: Greeley's Thunderhead on Frog-Walking Conservative Democrats

2009-12-12T06:33:00.000-05:00

A guest posting, written over the course of the last few months as the nations law makers bicker over health care, by the Greeley blogger Thunderhead. Thunderhead describes the legislative fallout of first giving the insurance industry the power to ignore antitrust legislation after WWII, for valid reasons, and now, three-quarters of a decade later, removing from the current House bill on healthcare reform the language which would have terminated such an advantage for the insurance industry.

Article 1 by Thunderhead

For health care reform in the congress, a hidebound Republican Party is frog-walking conservative democrats away from the establishment of single-payer policies. As unemployment numbers stretch into the multi-millions, as the dollar undergoes devaluation, as more American work is outsourced by chasing cheap labor-gradients around the world, we’re just going to have to take Bush’s advice and buy that health insurance savings account after all. You remember…the republican solution to health care?
Instead of repealing insurance mandates and anticompetitive legislation, the Senate Finance Committee’s reform of health insurance does nothing to lower health care costs. In fact, competition is inhibited to support existing monopolistic and cartel formation. The Finance Committee’s policy-making elite relies upon the continued abandonment of federal antitrust enforcement to further the erosion of competition; it also ensures that the industry’s captive customer base undergoes additional harm from systematic denial of vital medical services in support of corporate/investor profits.
Let us ask our health insurance agents: “What percentage of my spouse’s health and of my children’s health should be subject to profit-taking?”
But why must we now advocate for competition? While competition is the health of our economic system most businesses, large or small, given the chance, will seek to eliminate it; competition protects the life of the economy and requires constant vigilance by congress. It is not true that free markets self-regulate; unrestrained, undisciplined markets are deregulated markets that hinder rivalry and rush toward monopolization—toward anti-business and the brute-force application of corporate economic might alone--wiping out competition and consumer choice along a trail of fraud and deceit. Government, the necessary evil, provides the proper restraint, discipline, regulation and enforcement which makes an economy work for everyone, the poor, the middle-class, and the wealthy.
The Transition Report on Competition Policy compiled by the American Antitrust Institute states: that “…competition is the preferred regulator of business behavior.” The conclusion is undeniable--competition lowers costs. Competition is the market’s equivalent of natural selection. Bailouts are indicators that congress, over several administrations, failed to maintain competition in our markets. The aggregate of coincidence, folks, points to intent. Look to congressional PAC funding to see theirs.
By refusing to invest the health insurance industry with competition the Senate Finance Committee publicly demonstrates that it has no interest in improving health care by controlling costs. Instead, the Finance Committee is perpetuating a monopolized health insurance market.
Competition, essential to economists from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman, is now portrayed, through blustering media repetition, as a radicalized Bolshevik notion since it comes to a monopolized insurance market by means of “infused” competition via public option, that is, by government—the only entity large enough to compete with monopolization. Thus the Finance Committee will not place competition at the feet of an insurance industry which begs, by policies harmful to its customers, for regulation.
The 60 member democratic majority is, in part, complicit with the shrinking ranks of the republicans in forging a bill unpalatable to the public. All things considered, much of the Senate simply cares more about the relationships they’ve forged with large corporations. Their word, commitment and pride, is vested in those who pay to get them elected and re-elected.
Yet you have to wonder why they are not upfront about the wretched truth of their policies. The exertion of extraordinary corporate influence on congress is the most fundamentally obvious example of conflict of interest, anywhere. It is what happens when congress understands the natural human weakness to accept bribery then sanctifies it with legality. How do we think it will turn out?

Sen. Reid Carves Tombstone for Public Option

2009-12-10T03:06:00.007-05:00

Anyone have any ideas on what the tombstone over the public option for healthcare will look like? Will it be a picture of Harry Reid's face alone or can we get a group photo of Senator Reid, Ms. Don't-Snow-on-my-private-parade Olympia, Senator MyPeopleGetWhateverItell'emIwant Montana's Max Baucus (a Corporate Pinocchio if there ever was one), and our own beloved almost-democrat-but-hey-she's-star-quality-cute-to-look-at Congresswoman Betsy Markey plus a few of the other Colorado Republicans wearing democratic drag these days. Maybe we can even get a shot of the nine faces of Joe Lieberman included.

From the WSJ on Lieberman

"Sen. Joseph Lieberman, speaking in that trademark sonorous baritone, utters a simple statement that translates into real trouble for Democratic leaders: "I'm going to be stubborn on this."
Stubborn, he means, in opposing any health-care overhaul that includes a "public option," or government-run health-insurance plan, as the current bill does. His opposition is strong enough that Mr. Lieberman says he won't vote to let a bill come to a final vote if a public option is included."

Or how about that great ex-insurance salesman turned Senator Forty-two-percent-of-folks-without-health-insurance Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Maybe he'll stop in for a prime time photo-op as well. I'm sure he will want his grandchildren to understand how he helped create a second class citizenry for the other families in America.

From ABC Blog News:

"On "This Week" Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., said he couldn't live with the health care bill that was just voted on last night.
He gave me a list of non-starters, including the opt-out public option. Nelson did leave a little room for negotiation on a public option. "

It is the beautiful twins of corporate irony in action. The House bill takes out the provision that would remove protections for the Insurance Industry put in place around WWII which allows the entire industry to collude with impunity. Next the Senate takes out single payer and the true public option. I doubt the movie Mafia characters could have cooked up a better scheme.

While the rest of us work for a living the insurance industry has been choosing those best dressed guys who like to sell shampoo to a bald man and nurturing and funding them for years straight into your Congress seats. Don't you love it when a plan comes together and you wake up in the morning feeling powerless in your own country?

And then these senators go home to their well tended families, whip the servants (excuse me... the undocumented workers) into a frenzy getting a round of scotch for everyone, and tuck their loved ones into their warm cozy corporate paid-for beds. It is a tale even Hollywood wouldn't dare to film.

If you want to get the undigested version the Library of Congress's Thomas is a one-stop reading point. Hey maybe we should eliminate access to the library to those who can't afford to buy the books. Seems only fair and should move America back into feudalism more quickly than what the conservatives have planned. A short trip. Just a suggestion--I digress.

Am I upset? Of course I am. I have no idea what to wear to the prison when I get thrown in as a conscientious objector refusing to purchase a government "approved" private nonprofit plan. Better garbage you couldn't snag out of Paris Hilton's boudoir than the rancid elitist fluff of hot air pumping out of the Senate.

Although prison might not be such a bad idea if I get really sick. Prisoners have healthcare. Prisoners have more status than the poor and the working class in the Senate's eyes.

So what does it take to get all these chumps out of office who sunk this ship? I'm ready to go to work to oust them. Each and every one of them.

Bye bye Harry... your arrogance to make your face in history will take you back down to the jowls of the working class. This country is going to see an election that really will make the history books the next time around. Now I suddenly understand how all those third parties achieved power and how some parties died out. I say "bury" the Republicans and reduce the Democrats to groveling choir boys.

I am not the only one disaffected. This commentary written by local chemist Ed Craig in a response to a friend asking about his feelings following Markey's House vote. It should also raise the "find a new job" on the list of priorities of some politicians. Thank you Ed for the use of this material.

"I see this very similar to what the Republicans are doing with Abortion. They make a big deal about making Abortion illegal. It get's the conservatives to show-up and vote for them. Well, the conservatives were in control of virtually everything for 8 years and they never once tried to push an Anti-Abortion bill through congress. Why? It's simple, as long as Abortion is out there they can count on the conservatives and religious idiots to show-up and vote for them. They know as soon as they make Abortion illegal all those people with evaporate.

Health Care Reform is the same on the Democrat side. As long as it's out there Democrats will line-up to vote. Once people are satisfied with their Health Care then they won't be as interested in showing up to vote. Also a lot of the people in Congress are getting huge kickbacks from the health insurance companies and health care providers. Keeping people in office that are already beholding to the insurance companies and health care providers doesn't serve us any purpose at all other than preventing us from putting someone else in office that might not be so beholding.

If Bennet, Udall, or Markey want my vote they'll find a way to vote for some type of real health care reform. Otherwise they're no better than the Republicans so why keep them around. I went through this 30 years ago... I'm not waiting another 30 years for them to
grow a set of gonads. Either they can do the job or they can't. If they can't do the job then why would I want to keep them there?"

They don't have these problems in England and France. Oh that's right, England and France shed its love-affair with Monarchies a few heads ago except for photo shots and sound bites. Here our companies crawl in bed with the Monarchs while the not-too-bright peasants serve the both tea and crumpets in the hope that someday, maybe just someday, they, the servant might also be a royal.

Personally I only bought into the Cinderella and Prince Charming on a White Horse idiocy until about age sixteen. I am not buying what the Congress is selling this time either. Proverbially, I say we set the Queen O'Hearts on the lot of them. My reasoning? Few seem to understand that Alice really lives in the real world and not everyone is so lucky as to pull a seat next to the White Rabbit.

Pass the magic cookies please.

Tomorrow, okay or maybe the next day--on Greeleyville, a surprise guest columnist on Health Care Reform. Stay tuned.

Mango Couscous And A Big Turkey

2009-11-19T03:48:00.005-05:00

I hate cooking the same things over and over again. I don't like reading the same book twice, driving the same route every day, and I rarely watch a movie twice. I think that sensation of newness and creativity. I like the exploration of spaces, nooks, and crannies that can fill my mind. I'm an insatiable woman that way.

Hence I look for new ways to torture my family on Thanksgiving every year.

This year however I will be cooking at my brother's home. So I may have to calm the raging fires a bit and produce something akin to a normal Thanksgiving. I've got the organic bird. The stuffing recipe that could float a whale. Mashed potatoes (the one common bond between all genetically linked family members and non) with gravy. Oh, and the pumpkin pie.

So I figure that leaves everything else to mess with.

I'm posting one of my favorite previous, more successful, "different" things I've thrown in for Thanksgiving. I'm thinking of doing it again this year--since I didn't get time in isolation for this dish last year.

I thought I'd post and share with readers. An apology for not blogging so to speak. Feel free to send me others--I'll post them if you want or else put them in with your comments. There is a comment link at the end of each post. If you click on that link you should get a comment window to open up.

Mango Couscous

The Washington Post, November 8, 2006

* Cuisine: African

* Course: Side Dish

* Features: Fast, Meatless

Summary:

Who knew that tomato, raisins and mango go so well together? This is a very fruity, pretty and easy side dish.

4 servings

Ingredients:

* 1 cup couscous

* 2 tablespoons olive oil

* 1 medium clove garlic, minced

* Flesh of 1 mango, cut into 1-inch cubes (about 1 cup)

* 1 jalapeño chili pepper, stemmed, seeded and finely chopped

* 1/2 cup dark raisins

* 1 medium tomato, cored, seeded, and coarsely chopped

* Juice of 1 lime

* 1/4 cup loosely packed small cilantro sprigs, finely chopped

* 1/4 cup loosely packed small flat-leaf parsley sprigs, finely chopped

* Salt

Directions:

Heat 1 tablespoon of the olive oil in a large skillet over medium-high heat. Add the garlic, mango and jalapeño chili pepper and cook about 5 minutes, until the mango begins to color lightly. Add the remaining tablespoon of olive oil and the couscous, raisins, tomato, lime juice, cilantro and parsley, stirring to combine. Cook long enough just to heat through. Season with salt to taste. Serve hot or at room temperature.

Making Instant Window Ice in Greeley Colorado

2009-11-19T03:03:00.004-05:00

All right. Stop calling. I'll write. I'll write!

It's true I have been skipping out on those refreshing blood pressure gushing cynical observations of mine. And, yes, I realize I've let some of my readers down and made them go search for some other neurotic politically minded blogger.

But my heart has been more into reflection the last couple of months and I don't generally write about things when I feel befuddled and undazzled.

I first came to Greeley less than a year ago. After finishing the job from Mars, I wanted to be near my Mother where I could visit her in her final declining months. I also wanted to rekindle that spark of extended family I had left while my sons spent their twenties chasing mates. I figured my sons would check in as soon as they found someone they could bring home to Mom.

The last Blondy bimbo barely-high-school grad wannabe my youngest son almost introduced me to flopped miserably. He will be joining the household for Thanksgiving. I've noted he isn't bringing a guest. Is it the stuffing recipe or is it Mom?

Or to put it another way, the nest was finally empty and I decided it wasn't really a nest at all so I set out looking to find a new one or at least have the fun of poking around other people's nests.

After a few months I have learned some exciting things about Greeley and northern Colorado. One is how to make instant ice on my windshield in the morning. Another is that almost every town in Colorado sprawls all over the place uncontrolled. Greeley doesn't have a lock on the poor planning decisions department at all. I've also learned to expect the streets of Greeley to roll up at about seven in the evening. The only things I've seen out on the town in the evening are furry, harry, and Peter Cottontail. Maybe I'm just not looking in the right places.

But what daunted me the most, and made me draw back considerably from writing, was the election process and the ideologies that process highlighted.

I've never been someone who seriously wanted to tell other people what to do with their lives. In my book, if you are living up to your set of ideals and what you believe in, and you are not physically menacing or threatening another human being then that is a good thing. If some one's politics are not my own I have never really felt a serious need to change them.

Then, again, I've never felt harm threatened by a conflicting political mindset.

As I drive around Northern Colorado I can definitely feel the forces at work for minimum government and regulation. Every time I have visited my Uncle Billy's ranch I see those forces at work. He would sic his ranch dogs on any government anything that came on the ranch I think. Jail be dammed. Just leave him alone and he will be just fine. Probably some of the last words he whispered in his head as his family, not my side, shuttled the 96 year-old off into the rest home so they could mine his landed fortunes.

Government has its place. Rules and regulation have their place. Keeping government out of our individual lives has a place too. There isn't one way that works for everything or everybody.

But watching and reading and talking to people in Greeley holding vested interests in their own future well-being and their children's vote down 3A made me take a big breath and retrace my own views a bit.

Yes, I blogged furiously about the problems in the District. I still believe that those problems are a big problem. But promoting the gutting and dismantling of what is left of Greeley's public school system was never my own intent. You don't identify that there is a deep gaping wound on your leg so that surgeons can cut the leg off. You identify it so it can be tended and bandaged and returned to normal.

I guess that is not what the voters in Greeley are in tune with. They are in tune with taxes and their own personal advantages in the world. Well that may be a sweeping generalization but it does represent the total experience I've heard, summarized.

To add onto my personal feelings of woe over the political environment I've recently read through the City's Charter and discovered that technically most the political power really has been handed over to a nonelected official, the City Manager. The City Council are in effect stuffed puppets used to assuage the public mindset that they are the ones in charge and can vote out those who don't perform.

Do Greeley citizens really think that paying someone $1200 or so a month gives them a full-time Mayor for the city? Do Greeley citizens think that Greeley is still small and rural and doesn't need a full-time Mayor? Do Greeley citizens really think it is in their best interest to limit the people who can run for political office to a pool of people who are retired or have enough money they don't have to work for real wages or to build a real career? Fire the Mayor, either one Clark or Norton, I doubt they would be troubled about losing their position for long. Neither would the other council members. After all being the public whipping post when your City Manager really makes all the calls on how things are done and who gets to benefit isn't a position of comfort.

But I digress here over my disillusionment. Just remember YOU CALLED ME and asked me to write! Suffer my melancholy whims.

But I still like the people here. I like all the trees. I like the fact that the downtown needs fixing--it is something for the community to work on together. I like my family and they are here. I like it that Denver is only an hour away but that Denver is not HERE. And I like the snow. I haven't had to shovel it yet though.

In short, I'll get over it. I've decided I've just got the change blues. I'm going to volunteer for a while I think doing something that matters to the future big picture. It should help lift my spirits. There is a lot of work to be done in this community. My only regret is that I meet so many people that say change can't happen here and won't. They quit before they start. Or they have started before and it hasn't happened.

Well change comes incrementally and it always demands payment in the form of human energy, patience, conflict, and time.

I'm not quite sure it works the same in a town like Greeley. As I said I've never been particularly inclined to try to change things for other people. But here I don't think I'll be working to change things. I think I'll just be working to put reasonable working solutions together. The people Greeley already want good schools and good government. We just disagree on how to get to that nice safe warm place. As I see it, the places we are heading aren't going to get us there, so time to change course as compared to people. The people are good, the system choices are bad, and it is time to look further than out into our own backyards.

The people can, and will, choose which path they want to walk.

In the end I guess that is just like how it is supposed to be.

Don't Forget Cranky's Students Are Posting Good Things

2009-11-12T21:43:00.004-05:00

The UNC class covered election night at the Greeley Tribune. It is interesting to read their impressions for that night. So don't forget to give them some support and visit their postings on the Cranky Copy Editor's page. If you look to the left hand side of the blog you'll see the City Council links to the student postings. I am not a big fan of the Tribune myself. And I certainly would like to see their editorials improve. Maybe they could let the students write them so they have more factual reasoning and content. That would be nice! Some of these students are pretty good at this stuff.

But the Cranky Copy Editor's post is a little life-changing. I just went back and changed the title on this piece from "Kids" to "Students". Sometimes it is easy to forget how language can be offensive even when not intentional. My favorite complaint is why does an individuals race or color has to come into a conversation when their race or color has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed. For example this conversation recently passed during a routine dinner in this household, "My old roommate, who was black, showed up later after I had talked to the landlord." Race and gender bias is embedded deeply in a culture. Always a hot button issue. These references happen frequently I've noticed but yet no one else seems to pay attention. Kind of like the gender discussion on CCE's (Cranky Copy Editor) page.

Anyone got other ones?

Congressional Shocker: Betsy Markey Bats For The Other Team

2009-11-08T20:34:00.004-05:00

It would appear that I am not the only one peeved at the Democrats voting against health care reform. Thunderhead, a Greeley Colorado resident, posted the following note to my previous thoughts about Northern Colorado's Congresswoman Betsy Markey. I thought I'd repost it here.

Thunderhead: No one wants you on their football team when you cannot come through in the pinch.The Virginia governor's race should have been example enough, Betsy. Virginia's progressive base stayed home last Tuesday because their democratic governor decided he'd behave legislatively, like a Republican, and did so throughout his term. Like Virginia, we mistakenly believed you were on our team. The rule of thumb: when there's a choice between a republican candidate, and a democrat who acts like a republican, the republican will be chosen every time.That is what happened in Va. and is why Betsy, you do not deserve, nor will you win a second term as House Representative in this district. You betrayed your base on an historical issue. You may think, like other handwringing democrats who cannot be progressive, "what will the voters do instead, vote in a republican?" Wrong reasoning:That is what the, now former, democratic governor of Va. thought.To your base you are now a republican; you cannot make it up by voting left on other important issues; you voted to keep our health insurance industry monopolized, you voted for zero competition for the health insurance cartel, your base told you clearly: single or payer or robust public option. Always do what your base tells you. If in doubt within your district, always do what progressives nationally tell you; progressive democrats are progressive democrats anywhere in the country; they're not timid shape-shifting chimeras. But you knew better Betsy; you chose to be a political hybrid and try to hold your base hostage to a republican taking your seat. But it was you who brought harm to your base. You're a lame duck now, one year in to a two year term. And you are no democrat.

Betsy Markey Votes to Support Second Class Citzenship

2009-11-08T15:15:00.009-05:00

It deeply saddened me this morning to find Betsy Markey voted against the Health Care Reform bill. While I realize she is playing to the conservative base in Northern Colorado it is appalling to watch someone in office drive the rest of us, also on the bus, over the cliff.

Bye-bye Betsy. You have lost every voter in my family. Sometimes you have to stand up for what is logical and reasonable and in the interest of those without political power. But it takes a spine to do so in this region.

I've never taken to the idea of single issue voting. But in the case of health care reform I believe it transcends other single issues that have become before it. Voting to support the egalitarian viewpoint that there are fundamentally two types of people who live in this society--those who die early and painfully because they do not have enough accumulated wealth or status as compared to those who have status, political power, and wealth is a fundamental undermining of all the principles on which this nation was established. Generations upon generations of my family have worked their fingers to the bone to keep this country moving towards equality.

It is not the 1920's any longer Betsy. We are reaching the carrying-capacity point of many of our current systems. Those systems designed for "the few" cannot be expected to carry everyone into the future. Voting against a reasonable health care reform plan is foolish unless you hold to the egalitarian notion that there are two classes of people in our society and one of those classes deserves to work for the other but be rewarded with only as much gruel as the holders of political power will permit a second class citizen to gain.

Personally I don't want to live in a society based on those principles. My ancestors left Europe in 1660 to shed the suffocating cloak of oppression. I cannot vote for a representative who desires, whether blindly or simply for re-election purposes, to use her power of authority as an elected representative of the people to restore such an abusive and inhumane system.

Second class citizenship based on wealth is class warfare.

For more information on Democrats who voted against the bill, this morning's New York Times is carrying a list.

Betsy Markey(COLO. 4)

+12

MCCAIN

+1%

18%

Is Greeley District Six School Board Going Union Busting?

2009-10-29T18:35:00.001-05:00

A little excitement with your prairie coffee? There are disturbing things going on between the Greeley Colorado District 6 School Board and the Teacher's Union--Greeley Education Association. Could the District 6 School Board be working a strategy to bust the Teacher's Union? There are contracts being placed in teacher's school mailboxes and at least some teachers feel they are under pressure to sign or they will be fired. Both Trimberger and Broderius of the Greeley District 6 School Board have their stamped signature on the contract.

Please say it isn't so District 6.

The School Board has stated at its most recent meeting that it has adopted it's last contract offer to the Teacher's Union. Ninety percent of the GEA turned that contract offer down prior to this meeting. There is a statement posted to the District 6 School Board's website on the topic. The release is dated October 26, 2009. In it the school board cites that other staff will need to be laid off if the board honors what its previous promises and also grants current cost of living increases.

At its regular business meeting Monday evening, the District 6 Board of Education voted to render a final decision on the financial compensation items of the teachers union contract for the 2009-10 school year.
The Board approved the following compensation package for teachers for the 2009-10 school year:
• The district will pay the increased cost of contributions to the state retirement system (PERA)
• The district will pay the increased cost of health, dental and vision insurance
• The district will pay for educational advancement on the salary schedule for teachers (often
referred to as “lane” raises or “horizontal movement” raises)
• The district will increase the per-hour pay rate for teachers’ non-contract work to $25 per hour
(currently is $18)
The master agreement contract between District 6 and the Greeley Education Association calls for the Board of Education to make the final determination on matters that have not been resolved through the regular negotiations process or through meditation (Article 5-e-3). Mediation between the district and the union was held on Sept. 25, with the assistance of a federal mediator, but ended without an
agreement on salaries and benefits.
“This was a difficult decision to make, because we do care deeply about our teachers and hold them in high regard. But these are very difficult financial times for the district and also for our local communities and our state,” said Board President Bruce Broderius. “Financially, this is the best we can do. As disappointing as it is for all of us to be in the situation that we are, I truly hope we can still develop a partnership with the union to preserve jobs, to avoid layoffs, and to do what we can to lessen the fiscal crisis that will strike at the heart of our district in 2010.”
Salaries and wages for all of the district’s administrative and support staff employees were frozen at the beginning of the 2009-10 school year, remaining at last year’s levels.

The above statement tries to place the Board's decision into the context that it is acting under the current contract to make the final decision. I have not seen that current contract. It makes sense that some formal resolution in the case of an impasse to keep every one operating could be contained in the contract. And I certainly do not have the legal background to constructively comment that what the Board is doing is legally questionable. I think though from a humane perspective, from a public relations perspective they, the Board, just put the bus in a ditch.

However, currently, there is a contract being dispersed throughout the school district in teacher's mailboxes and some teachers are under the belief that if they do not sign this contract they will be fired. This document is dated October 19, 2009. Other teachers, I hear, are packing their bags, if not now, then at the end of this year.

Here is a link to the contract teachers found in their mailboxes this week. I've posted a photo copy of a contract with personal information removed.

If the Board is continuing to operate underneath the old contract then what is this "other" contract all about? Why does it come without clear instructions on intent to the teachers? It has at-will employment law clauses in the new contract and it labels a long-standing teacher as a non-probationary employee. This would be, my assumption, bad faith actions if it was handled while active mediation was ongoing. That is at a minimum. If negotiations have now formally ended, and if the current contract is null and void because there wasn't any consensus reached, then is the Board indicating that it will fire any teacher unwilling to sign this new document or is the Board just trying to edge out the Union by breaking off chunks of the membership and getting them to sign independent of the Union while things are in transition? Certainly newbie young teachers without anything to gain in experience ratings or salary increases might be tempted to sign this contract under the duress of losing their job.

Where is the District's highly-paid Superintendent in all these matters? Why hasn't the Superintendent addressed her staff and the public?

My hope is that the Union is seeking to call a meeting ASAP for the teachers. That meeting needs to give teachers the ability to ask Union lawyers some good questions. For example, what does it mean if I sign this contract with the School District (union teachers say they have not been asked to personally sign a contract in years--the Union negotiates their contracts for them). Does this mean I am bound to a contract without representation of my union? How can I be forced under duress of losing my job into signing a contract? Those are just beginners.

It seems a wonderful coincidence that the Board has danced this long with this Union until right up before the election cycle. Perhaps the Board has confidence that the Greeley public will not be supportive of the teachers considering the voters may turn away the Mill Levy Override. Even if the Mill Levy Override passes the District Board will be sitting pretty because they have strongly emphasized through out the Mill Levy Campaign that certified staff (teachers) will not receive any pay benefits from Measure 3A. So the District won't be needing to go back and revisit their current decision to abort negotiations and render a nonconsensual contract on their teachers.

A nice pickle to put the Union in. A nice pickle for the Union to get itself into.

A scenario: If the District 6 Board pushes teachers into a panic mode and gets several teachers to sign these contracts what does that mean to the Union and their representation of the teachers. Is the Board trying to alienate teachers from their Union with this dog and pony show?

That isn't the only benefit the Board might receive. If teachers get upset and walk off the job they can be replaced with newbies. If teachers sign the contract being shoved under their pen and then leave at the end of the year when public rancor has died down--the Board will get to hire "newbies".

It doesn't get more corporate than the above scenario folks. Public education is not a business for a reason. Making teachers into manipulated widgets does not build the type of experiential investment needed to produce the results necessary for Greeley kids to compete in the big world. All efforts should be made to retain experienced talent and to mix in new and rising talent along the way. It is all part of a good human resources personnel. Teachers are the productive asset in any education system.

With the Tribune trumpeting the Board's position and the District Superintendent Ms. Lang nowhere within the common public reach and Mr. Eads being allowed to be the district spokesperson it is going to be up to the teachers and the public to demand real answers to the budgetary questions. It is a very easy time frame in which to manipulate public opinion against the teachers.

Unfortunately there are a lot of other scenarios that could be at play here. Parties within negotiations and mediation often are tongue-tied for good reason. Contracts can have some funky clauses on "what happens next". Hence stories and rumors coming to the outside world can get very distorted. Both the Board and the GEA will need public support as this gets touchy. It would nice to think that one or the other group will play fair and openly with the community. Public relation manipulation is yesterday's game plan. Today it is all about being honest and transparent. It is only fair that the Board be allowed to clear up their actions by better informing, clearly and meaningfully, the strategic purpose of their plans.

This Board appears to have little credibility based on past performance--perceived or actual. That image problem, in and of itself, regardless of the source which began the problem, has put the Board in a poor position on community leadership. Credibility is essential in your governmental systems and this Board's credibility is on the line. Will the Board obfuscate and make the situation worse? Or will they be forthcoming and transparent with their teachers and begin taking some steps toward healing. Poor press management and poor spokesperson choices is likely just to darken the skies ahead.

Certainly the Board, and the Board's employee Superintendent Lang, would have known for a while that by keeping experienced teachers around there would be step increases and other associated rise in labor costs. The bottleneck is a sign of long term poor planning. It can't all be about the economic downturn.

http://greeleyville.blogspot.com/2009/06/parity-and-greeleys-district-6.html

http://greeleyville.blogspot.com/2009/07/greeley-district-6-performance-check.html

http://greeleyville.blogspot.com/2009/09/greeley-school-district-six-mill-levy.html

http://greeleyville.blogspot.com/2009/09/part-ii-greeley-school-district-latino.html

http://greeleyville.blogspot.com/2009/10/part-iii-greeley-school-district-six.html

New Contract Offerred to Greeley District 6 Teachers

2009-10-29T16:00:00.000-05:00

The following are scans of a contract document placed within a Greeley Colorado District 6 Schools envelope and placed in the mailbox of a long time Greeley Colorado District 6 teacher who is also a member of the Greeley Education Association Union. To enlarge these documents for viewing click on the document icon and it will expand into the window. I have referred to these documents in the next posting.

Negotiations: Greeley Colorado District 6 Teachers Get Thrown Under the Bus

2009-10-27T11:06:00.005-05:00

Greeley Colorado District 6 school teachers got a parochial school lesson last evening from the District School Board when the Board basically decided on a package deal for the teachers. Teachers are howling and the Union is threatening action. It remains to be seen what can or can't be done. While it would be reasonable during an economic downturn to curtail cost of living increases it is a hard pill to swallow when federal stimulus funds are coming into the district and a recovery is well underway except in job creation. Top that off with the fact that the Consumer Price Index shows that what $1.00 bought in 2007 now costs $1.04 or a $50,000 salary in 2007 is worth 2,080.27 less than it was in 2007.

Of course the District is facing the same problem. It is going to have to spend $1.04 for every $1.00 spent previously and with property values sinking, the Tabor Act limiting tax increases not yet through the court system, and 3A swinging in the wind, I'd be sweating bullets too if I were on that School Board. Except that I suspect the State automatically adjusts the payments to the local schools for increases and, as I said previously, the state and local schools are eligible for stimulus funding. I've posted a couple of paragraphs on the federal money below taken from the Colorado Department of Education website. There are a few opportunities too, if I am reading the language on this page correctly, that District 6 should be applying for that could help with building attractive pay packages for high quality teachers and administrators in the future. Hope someone is on that and making it happen.

Overview
Congress designed the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund to prevent reductions in critical education and other services.
The Recovery Act allocates the following:
A one-time appropriation of $53.6 billion for the overall State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
$39.7 billion in Education State Grants for states to use first in restoring state support of primary, secondary, and higher education through 2011 to the greater of 2008 or 2009 levels, and $8.8 billion in Government Services Grants to support any public safety or other government services, including education
At least $4.35 billion to fund Race to the Top State Grants, which includes $350 million in Standards and Assessments Grants
Up to $650 million in competitive grants to LEAs or nonprofit organizations under the Investing in Innovation Fund
Funding
Colorado is expected to receive $760,242,539 in Recovery Act funding for its State Fiscal Stabilization Fund state allocation, which includes $621.9 million for its Education State Grant and $138.3 million for its Government Services Grant.

I'll write more on the negotiation topic when I get more information. I haven't posted too much on the topic as it is because to be honest it is difficult to tell facts from fiction and media hype. I've been in the middle of mediation before and it is not a whole lot of fun to have the media perpetuating panic points. For example, a mild one, I heard last week that the Board were secretly putting new contracts in front of some select teachers and telling them they should sign them and that the new contracts would allow the teachers to be fired at will once signed.

I sent that worried teacher back to dig for more details because it just sounded more than a little implausible that those details were correct. Every one is worried about the state of education in Greeley District 6. That much is obviously the truth.

UNC Student Bloggers Are Hot Greeley Colorado Journalism Tamales

2009-10-22T18:24:00.009-05:00

I really like being surprised in a positive way. I revisited the UNC site where The Cranky Copy Editor, Lynn Klyde-Silverstein, has rounded up a tussle of students in a journalism class and has them blogging on Greeley Colorado's City Council meetings. Of course, I already posted about this previously. I also added a link to the site in my blog list and am crossing my fingers she will turn a blind-eye to my own spelling and grammar errors. Possibly my headlines too. Today I went back and read through some of the postings on the site and loved it.

Positively.

To explain I have to get into the age thing and I really hate that but I'll do it anyway. It is kind of like having your teenager's friend bump into you while you are carrying your Lady Clairol Grey Coverage hair dye to the drugstore counter. Where is that instant rewind button when you need it? However I've spent a lot of years in college, around college, teaching, learning, and just hanging out in various art departments when I had the time. Our town was small and the teachers and professors always had open doors. My point is that the shared viewpoint you get from people on the beginning edge of life is better than any fine wine I have ever encountered and I've encountered a few. That blend of seeing the world through newer eyes and open minds and trying to pen it all with a wise brush tends to the freshest content imaginable. And, in general, genuine and honest.

I miss having this experience on a regular basis and it is nice to be able to find it here, on a blog, in such a refreshing and easy way. It opens up your world a bit to how the next generations are going to deal with some of our leftovers. Like poor policy choices and budget fiascoes.

Here, on this blog The Cranky Copy Editor, you can find several versions of what happened the other night when the City Council shot down the pot dispensaries. And you get to read it from a generational perspective that, I'm guessing, has grown up with more of a weed culture than someone, say, my age did. This particular topic is of interest to me because I have lived in a town where dispensaries were allowed and have seen the positives and negatives.

I'll paste below one passage from one student's blog for a sample. But I really recommend checking these out if you are inclined, as I am, to enjoy the diversity of opinions and life that sometimes can arrive in the most simplistic packages.

I really enjoyed the last line. Calling it like it is!

From Tori Gutt's blog page. After much public input, the Council discussed the possibilities before voting on the ordinance. Mayor Ed Clark definitively stated that he is against dispensaries and therefore in favor of the ordinance. Councilmember Feldhaus agreed, stating that despite the compelling arguments from the audience, and the compassion he said he feels for the patients, there are just too few regulations in place to safely allow dispensaries. Councilmember Martin was the only one on the other side of the fence. He argued that dispensaries are the only way to enforce and regulate medical marijuana rules. Martin was unable to convince the others to oppose the ordinance resulting in a 6-1 vote to adopt the ordinance. This means that medical marijuana dispensaries are not allowed within the city of Greeley, but patients still may grow marijuana for their own personal use and continue to use the substance. The community support was there, the Council just wasn’t budging.

UNC Students Covering Greeley Colorado City Council Meetings

2009-10-21T00:21:00.004-05:00

There's a new site in town for political junkies and concerned, and not-so-concerned, citizens to take a look at now and then. Well at least I think it is new. Maybe it reoccurs each semester. The focus is on more than just the City Council meetings as it is a journalism course but it sounds interesting. It is Lynn Klyde-Silverstein's Reporting Contemporary Issues class at UNC blogging on City Council Meetings. You can check out the new digs at http://uncoeditprof.blogspot.com/2009/10/students-blogging-city-council.html

This is a great idea. I'd love to see what is going on in the minds of the generation younger than me and at the same time not have to kill any Woolly Mammoths in order to keep my feet warm plodding out to meetings during the winter. I can read some of what I miss online from a fresh perspective.

Jane Thumbs Up On Greeley District Six Mill Levy Tax And Thumbs Down on School Board

2009-10-19T14:35:00.008-05:00

People are emailing and ringing up and asking me what my final opinion is on the Greeley Colorado District 6 Schools Mill Levy Override. I've reposted the closing paragraphs near to the end of my last essay, Part III, on the topic for clarity.

Basically Jane is thumbs up on 3A and thumbs down on the District 6 Administration.

All told, the above suppositions and scenarios lead me to the last question: Is the performance problem a direct correlation to money?

Of course it is. It isn't the only problem but it is a fundamental one.

You get the quality of administration you pay for. If Greeley wants this situation resolved it needs to either clarify what Ms. Lang sees as the real problems in this district and demand a detailed plan and timeline for cleaning it up or replace her with someone who can build a better engine by distributing and using the parts given more effectively. This may also entail recalling and replacing the school board. If Greeley wants the students to perform more effectively against other districts then it is going to have to pay for higher quality administrators and probably better supplies and materials.

I'll also mention it is going to have to pay for high quality teachers as well but that argument is already being made by the Union.

The gist of my post here is that good effective systems are built and maintained and paid for by an involved community. If this community really wants to be fiscally conservative there is nothing bad about being sure money is spent in prudent ways to get effective results. But at the same time trying to micromanage systems after the damage has been done by gutting funding is extremist and dangerous. You have to pay to rebuild the engine and then make sure it is maintained once optimal function is reached. That is the time to get the fiscal conservatism argument in. Right now Greeley has to pay for the mechanics to fix the machine that crumbled while the electorate looked the other way.

Arguing, as some have done, that punishing administrators and making their jobs even harder is the way to get this administration to spend more wisely flies in the face everything this community has voted for and believed in for decades--smaller government is better and fiscal conservatism rules the day. The inflexibility of that ideology has built the system these administrators are now faced with changing and are being pummeled for creating. Even if guilty for continuing poor policies they certainly didn't get here all alone. They are elected.

... I still think that the Mill Levy Override has been poorly and misleadingly sold to a community looking desperately for an easy solution to the performance problems. Measure 3A won't fix what is wrong with the distribution of human resources. But not passing 3A will certainly do the students of D6 more harm than good as new priorities in funding would likely be made on par with ones suggested in the Greeley Tribune scare-tactic editorials. If the poor choices I pointed about above, do indeed exist, I hate to think of the impact of what a new round of cuts would mean. And the consequences of such damage in the long run is a bullet in the heart of this community that Greeley needs to avoid.

Part III: Greeley School District Six Admin Mill Levy Blues

2009-10-17T01:06:00.017-05:00

Ballots are out in the mail. Hair is flying in and around beauty shops and barber stops over the Greeley District 6 Mill Levy Override. Northern Colorado pays attention it appears when someone wants to reach into their pockets for whatever reason. This blog has seen quite an uptick over the last week, even as I rambled across New Mexico on vacation instead of finishing up the series I promised, with people searching for election information. That can't be a bad sign can it?

So I will roll up my sleeves here and see if I can dig some more depth out of my research on the topic of the D6 Mill Levy Blues. For background, if you missed it, or fell asleep somewhere in the middle of my calculations, here are the first two installments of the series.

Part I: Greeley School District Six Mill Levy Blues

Part II: Greeley School District Latino Levy Blues

Now for the remaining questions:

Is the performance problem related to a lack of support materials?
Is the performance problem related to the transitory immigrant population?
Is the performance problem related to ineffective administration?
Is the performance problem related to wages and quality of people hired?
Is the performance problem a direct correlation to money?

I am going to eliminate addressing the second question above, in this third installment, because I believe I covered the immigration issue in Part II along with answering the question "Is it Us?".

Let's start here, with the opening paragraph to chapter five of an essay on A LEGISLATIVE AND LEGAL HISTORY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING. A little light reading for bedtime and a statement on the quantitative changes in American public education. Couple this with the Colorado Tabor Act and the pickle local schools are in becomes much more chewy and sour. The entire paper can be purchased online if you are interested.

The past half century has witnessed more than a five-fold increase in the real value of resources devoted to public education. While the number of students has also risen over that period, real expenditures even when adjusted for the number of students have also risen steadily so that today per-pupil educational expenditures are now about four times as large as they were in the late 1950s. Interestingly, however, educational expenditures as a percentage of GDP, while higher than the late 1950s, have remained roughly the same (in the neighborhood of four percent) since 1970. Moreover, while the percentage of the federal government's budget devoted to public education is double the level it was in 1960, it still amounts to less than two percent of all federal government expenditures.

Now onto the first question: Is the performance problem related to a lack of support materials?

The support material question aims directly at the heart of the tax measure. The district has used the plight of the suffering impoverished student without a personal textbook or up to date computing equipment to tug at parental heartstrings in hopes of securing support for the tax increase (Measure 3A). Much of this measure is designed, as you can see on the Greeley District 6 web site, to cover the cost of new instructional assets (supplies and materials). White electronic boards and textbooks, to name a couple, are direct support materials for students. Buses, security equipment, and other miscellaneous items round out the list. Vague indications exist that support staff might be hired under 3A.

Can the absence of these items create a negative performance for students on test scores? My guess is probably, collectively, just like rain droplets will eventually create a full bucket of water, yes it can create a small performance issue. Here's a couple reasons why.

The time spent organizing textbook sharing is a cost to the teacher. That time used is an opportunity cost. The teacher loses the opportunity to do other things that could better benefit the students such as preparing a lesson plan, consulting with an individual student, or doing some other task that will now be left undone. Students, in the meantime, have a great excuse, beyond the "printer ate my homework", by pointing out the unavailability of a textbook and their complete lack of fault for that circumstance. It's the adults' fault (every teenager's dream statement).

Now, of course, we all know that collaborative learning and organizational skills will benefit students as well. Most people also know that electronic textbooks will be on the retail shelf soon. But I am guessing we, at least parents and grandparents, also know that most students will still take advantage of the textbookless situation in the interim to do less work than expected. We did. Okay, at least I would have even if you won't admit it. I don't think students have changed that much and their arguments have even improved but I could be wrong.

So that is one drop in the bucket.

The District's Public Relations arm, AKA Greeley Tribune, has made sure the public is aware that taxpayer dollars will not go to teacher salaries. What they don't cover is that taxpayer dollars might go to administrative support or non credentialed teaching assistants to help lower the load on teachers and administrators. What they also are vague about is how much will go into these areas.

Do smaller class loads help performance? Depends. Spin the wheel and pick a study. There is some conclusive studies that students from lower income homes that also have parents with literacy issues tend to benefit from smaller class size. These students are most likely to be the beneficiaries of trained reading assistants potentially hired with A3 money if that is the plan. That would be my guess where the district will hire support. What that won't do is help signficantly with the District's poor math performance or the lack of science education, etc. Good math teachers and scientists are in higher demand and often draw higher salaries. Something that appears to be a situation the District seeks to avoid by putting general education teachers without enough specialized training into math and science courses and appeasing their regular workload by using non credentialed teachers in other areas. A questionable practice, especially if the objective is to raise performance, if I am correct in my assumptions.

Which all leads to the notion that should 3A not pass then performance issues will continue much as they already are with regards to classroom size. The exception would be that it could get worse if student populations are predicted to increase over the next few years.

A second drop in the bucket potentially.

The technology items like electronic white boards and better computers are an increase in efficiency within the classroom just like they are in our homes. It takes us less time to pay our bills if we can do it electronically. It takes us less time to argue with our spouses if we can Google-Up the fact that we are right... again. It takes less time to write an email than to hand write a letter, put it in an envelope, and lick it and stick it in the snail mail. These are all time savings so that we can, in theory, get more done (sans napping on the couch).

The same time-savings work for the students and teacher. More time to zip open those greedy little sponge minds and stuff new concepts inside helps considering there are a whole lot of new concepts to add on top of the ones we learned as young students.

That is three, maybe four, drops in the bucket.

As the bucket fills however it might be prudent to point out that the real underlying question is whether these students, when tested, are being tested against a standard performance measure where "standard" has been established by students in other districts who have more technology tools, textbooks, and other things. Boulder comes to mind. In other words are Greeley students worse off than their counterparts when it comes to materials and supplies yet expected to test out at the same levels.

I don't really have a specific answer to this question. But I doubt that these annual test scores are adjusted for material goods in the same way they are not adjusted for the annual income of the household of the student.

We do know that some levels of funding are less in Greeley than other parts of the State, and in the nation, but it really comes down to how each district spends the money they do have and what the priorities are in each district. Each Superintendent and School Board make active decisions on priorities especially when new demands on the budget exceed the current funding supply.

The situation reminds me of a small futile exercise in mechanics I once had during high school wherein we all learned a quick lesson that it isn't just the things you have to work with that count it is what you can make them do for you that counts.

In our high school we had several technical courses to participate in as freshmen and freshwomen. All of which I greatly benefited from over my adult life. Few of which still exist in public schools. One of these was agricultural science and I had to cut the horns off a cow. I still have a great appreciation for ranchers to this day. But I digress into my own unpleasant memory here (and some students think dissecting a frog is abuse). The pertinent class to this piece is auto shop.

We divided up into teams of three. We were given the pieces, parts, and other essential supplies to build a small engine. We were also given extra parts and pieces. Each team kit was a little bit different but all had minimal essentials for success included. All lumped together in a big scary box. We had three weeks to accomplish our task in. Needless to say at the end of three weeks there were seven small engines in the classroom. All started and ran for a couple of minutes before dying a death more tragic than anything Shakespeare could put on a written page. Except one. The one built by the kid with the local mechanic for a parent hummed along perfectly until it ran out of fuel.

This leads me to the next question to be addressed: Is the performance problem related to ineffective administration? I am going to combine this question with the next one as well: Is the performance problem related to wages and quality of people hired?

(Before I begin on this aspect I'd just like to say that the Administration of Greeley District 6 is a pretty easy fall guy to pick on. Mostly because those doing the picking don't have to do the hard work and deal with the very real hard problems our education system is facing. That includes me of course. I'm doing the picking here. If you've ever had the opportunity to be a public figure standing before a crowd of angry people who think that they could do a better job because they know that a jar of pickles should only cost $4.30 instead of $4.35 you know what I mean. And yes, that is a representative metaphor and not a specific example.)

In my previous post of the series I took a look at some comparative figures. I'll post the main two paragraphs below here so we have those figures in this post

Administratively District 6 with 24,809 students is running .0006 administrators per student while Poudre Valley with 35,630 students is running .0005 administrators per student. However District Administrative support inPoudre is higher at .0046 per student than Greeley's Administrative support which is at .0038. What entails District Administrator support can very widely between districts. One district might hire Vice Principal's for instance whose job duties are very isolated while others may hire for the same position and also assign teaching duties.

As investment examples, in 2005/06 Poudre paid out in salaries per student 24,185.00 Greeley paid out in salaries 17,547.5 per student. Greeley by comparison is running much lower in salary dollars spent per student.

Essentially Greeley District 6 has significantly fewer students and is running more administrative pay per student than Poudre. Poudre however puts more into administrative support than Greeley D6. In 05/06 Poudre paid out more dollars in salaries per student than D6.

So one conclusion could be that Poudre staff are higher paid on the average and perform more effectively with less administrators than Greeley D6.

Now there are problems with my conclusion here. First of all it is not known exactly whom and what job descriptions these salaries entail and obviously Poudre administrators have more funding to hire support staff. But I would assume since the figures are reported from the same governmental agency site that the job descriptions included are similar.

The conclusion I have drawn here leads me to one of the next questions: Is the performance problem related to wages and quality of people hired?

Relying on some behind the scenes information from Greeley D6 staff and teachers there have been some questionable hiring based on nepotism and "the good old boys" league. One with substance is a case where a prominent top administrative position has been given to someone with minimal academic qualifications but a long work history with D6--starting at one of the lowest non classified positions. Another is a case where potentially a firing was made, in part, to hire the relative of another employee.

I would like to be clear here that I have not seen any job descriptions in D6 nor is anyone else I talked to, about these specific cases, privy to that type of information. I fully respect the right of any employee's privacy and there will not be any names bandied about here. I've seen damage done unfairly before and what I am doing here is pointing out possible issues that are underlying performance problems. However nepotism and the political bedfellow problem is hardly new to Colorado and all Americans for that matter. And certainly academic credentials are not a substitute for experience but a compliment to experience and vice versa.

My question, based on the above speculation in combination with the administrative ratio, would be whether or not high-level staff are being appropriately screened and placed in positions where they have the skills and talent to be successful. Are the administrative applicants being selected based on a priority of high level skills, knowledge, and experience as compared to nepotist or ideological considerations.

I bring this question up because, contrary to some of the running commentators on various blogs, Greeley overall has a lower percentage of overall funding going to administrative pay if you don't break it down into the ratio of "per student" as I have done above. Basically the administration on paper, collectively, looks underpaid. If you are the type of person that simply reads headlines this looks good. But in reality the question is whether or not the students and community are getting the job done right for that amount of money. I'll leave each reader to their own conclusion on that regard.

I am more interested in the other implications of what these figures and comparisons could mean. It could indicate that fewer administrators in D6 are covering a broader scope of work duties and making higher wages per individual position. It also could imply that more administrators are covering smaller scope of work duties and drawing smaller salaries per individual. This smaller salary would be based on the individual's skill and educational background qualifications. So effectively there are more administrators covering the entire workload. (Note: that there are internal costs associated with each employee added to the payroll so smaller pay scales do not generally mean a cost savings to the district). Essentially this "More-4-Less" scenario could potentially mean that administrators with less skill and expertise are being hired to keep administrative pay lower. This is one scenario that would lead to the higher administrative ratio I earlier indicated.

Potentially this "More-4-Less" could also be a result of a trend that higher qualified candidates do not apply in D6. Certainly D6 performance has been lackluster and professionals might not care to be associated with the district. Quality of life issues in the surrounding community may also be in play in this scenario. Another scenario could be that the quality of screening by the human resources department is lacking due to work load or lack of appropriate competency. Perhaps the hiring process is corrupted by nepotism or ideological priorities at other levels being handed down to the Human Resources division. From the outside one can only speculate at the various causes.

Also, to be fair, none of the above could apply. But I'd certainly like to hear another explanation.

It seems to me, given the .0006 ratio in combination with the salary distribution for Greeley that the second scenario "More-4-Less" above is more likely than the first. Greeley is running more administrators than Poudre for a much smaller student body. This would lead me to suggest that the administrators in Greeley, other than Ms. Lang, are being paid less than their counterparts and perhaps, collectively, do not have a similarly rich combination of skills with theory to draw upon to solve the problems they have been handed. Over time experience could kick in for these administrators and the trial-and-error costs associated with lower skilled administrators will fade. I doubt though current Greeley students and residents really want to be the test guinea pig.

The public doesn't have access to the type of information to assess this situation more fully, and shouldn't, as the process Human Resources goes through in hiring is protected information unless challenged by the employee in court (to the best of my knowledge). But the Board certainly can gain access to what they need to check into this situation--and should have already. A really good governance plan would prevent this problem from developing, if it does exist, no matter whose watch created it.

That again brings up the issue of quality school board candidates in the local area. I've neglected to cover the current candidates well in my blog but I have posted on the issue of qualities needed.

My above scenarios also do not directly implicate Ms. Lang's competency of administration necessarily. Since Ms. Lang arrived belatedly in the position of Administrator to help correct a bad situation she certainly had to, for a while anyhow, work with the clay mold handed to her. It may have not been her oversight of human resource policy that has led to this situation, if it does indeed exist, or it may be a nuanced political pressure fostered by current Board policy. The question Ms. Lang does need to address, in my opinion, is whether or not she has identified human resource distribution on the administrative level as a problem and if hiring policies have been changed and a redistribution of administrators has been forth coming. And she needs to give specifics on the direction of the change and the steps taken to correct the situation.

Unfortunately the only evidence available to the public is not conclusive on whether new policies have been adopted. I can find no mention of it in past Board minutes. The two cases I have used to set up my thoughts on this performance issue are ongoing and recent.

But I have to return to the fact the Board and the Superintendent are the easy scape-goats to take aim at. Also complicit in the problem is that higher quality employees simply may not attracted to Greeley District 6 and the Human Resource department is left choosing from applicants with limited qualifications.

In that case the only solution available to the Human Resource Department and to Ms. Lang would be to offer more attractive salary packages to attract higher performers. I can already see that politically it would easier to elect a flaming liberal to the position of Mayor in Greeley than to get higher pay packages past the school board and local population. Most likely the problem underlying, if this nonapplication scenario is the reality, is quality of life issues for small town Greeley. And that is about the community as a whole not just the Board and their employee.

An informal survey by a local teacher concludes that a good many of her peers live in Fort Collins and commute to Greeley.

I'll leave the readers to assume why such a situation may exist.

All told, the above suppositions and scenarios lead me to the last question: Is the performance problem a direct correlation to money?

Of course it is. It isn't the only problem but it is a fundamental one.

You get the quality of administration you pay for. If Greeley wants this situation resolved it needs to either clarify what Ms. Lang sees as the real problems in this district and demand a detailed plan and timeline for cleaning it up or replace her with someone who can build a better engine by distributing and using the parts given more effectively. This may also entail recalling and replacing the school board. If Greeley wants the students to perform more effectively against other districts then it is going to have to pay for higher quality administrators and probably better supplies and materials.

I'll also mention it is going to have to pay for high quality teachers as well but that argument is already being made by the Union.

The gist of my post here is that good effective systems are built and maintained and paid for by an involved community. If this community really wants to be fiscally conservative there is nothing bad about being sure money is spent in prudent ways to get effective results. But at the same time trying to micromanage systems after the damage has been done by gutting funding is extremist and dangerous. You have to pay to rebuild the engine and then make sure it is maintained once optimal function is reached. That is the time to get the fiscal conservatism argument in. Right now Greeley has to pay for the mechanics to fix the machine that crumbled while the electorate looked the other way.

Arguing, as some have done, that punishing administrators and making their jobs even harder is the way to get this administration to spend more wisely flies in the face everything this community has voted for and believed in for decades--smaller government is better and fiscal conservatism rules the day. The inflexibility of that ideology has built the system these administrators are now faced with changing and are being pummeled for creating. Even if guilty for continuing poor policies they certainly didn't get here all alone. They are elected.

Jane steps on soapbox.

Education is an investment and it takes money to stay at the top of the heap. Being at the bottom of the heap has the type of consequences the community is now reaping. But, yes, it costs less money to be at the bottom of the heap than the top. In the name of fiscal conservatism and, in my opinion, probably racism, Greeley has accomplished its goals. It has gotten the least educational results for all the children in the community for the least dollars spent.

Greeley, together, has institutionalized and supported the dysfunctions that exist in the education system and in the end, Greeley citizens, need to pick up the bill and invest in the community's future prosperity by investing in its youth and help correct this mess.

And if some kid happens to get two pencils instead of one--great maybe they'll use them both.

Which brings me to my thoughts on Measure 3A--the Mill Levy Override for Greeley Colorado District 6. Greeley needs to pass Measure 3A. Plus Greeley needs to recall the board in order to replace the executive administration. That or Ms. Lang needs to go public, in person, with a workable detailed plan and timeline far beyond tacitly touting that Measure 3A is a magic bullet. It isn't.

I still think that the Mill Levy Override has been poorly and misleadingly sold to a community looking desperately for an easy solution to the performance problems. Measure 3A won't fix what is wrong with the distribution of human resources. But not passing 3A will certainly do the students of D6 more harm than good as new priorities in funding would likely be made on par with ones suggested in the Greeley Tribune scare-tactic editorials. If the poor choices I pointed about above, do indeed exist, I hate to think of the impact of what a new round of cuts would mean. And the consequences of such damage in the long run is a bullet in the heart of this community that Greeley needs to avoid.

So my Jane-conclusion, for now, on what the performance problems are in Greeley District 6 basically comes down to ineffective administration complicated by a rigidly ideological community promoting less efficient management policies.

But that is not the end of this series. I have one more to write on testing in the District. I have homework to do first.

Night 4 and Beyond: My Mother and Georgia O'Keefe

2009-10-10T16:27:00.007-05:00

I remember once falling asleep in art history class. The older, almost Russian attaché appearing gent, a marvelous professor, didn't appreciate my closed-eye presence in the seat closest to the podium. I seem to remember we were somewhere between Monet's late work and Munch's Scream. It certainly wasn't a commentary on my interest but more so a commentary on the basement-cold massive cement theatre at 7 AM with no coffee in hand after a long night with a small child crouping. He tapped me on the foot with his cane, immediately successful in rousing me from my slumber and instigating a deep red flush across my face, and rewarded my new found alertness with a deserved glare I shall never forget.

I swore off the next period class in that room--American Modern. Hence my understanding of this period of art is less than what it could be. So, needless to say, when my traveling companion noted that Wednesday in Santa Fe was "all yours" and smiling through his mischevious depth of knowledge about my passions in life, informed me that the Georgia O'Keefe Museum was just around the corner from the hotel--my heart lept into my shoes and it was the first stop of the day in Santa Fe.

The building itself was Georgia, a soft vanilla brown adobe, with a simple line of trees outside. The special exhibition showing was a photo series of Georgia herself, many taken by her husband, Alfred Stieglitz.

After having spent previous hours at the adobe of of a very good friend of mine, powerfully spiritual in her own sense of womanhood, and her husband a local abstractionist staring at walls filled with symbolism I had rather a fixed idea that Georgia's works would focus on the obvious yoni and phallic icons that are commonly pointed out and spoken about in terms of representational painting. So while I was eager to make the journey into Georgia's world I did not anticipate being surprised or educated by the unexpected nor did I anticipate such a wonderful experience by being surprised and educated by the unexpected as did occur.

The paintings were arranged chronologically. Stepping into the white rooms, one after another, I felt my artist's soul touching another artist's soul long ago beating with the same passion for texture, color, and discovery of the world around her that I have recognized in myself as I age.

Had I walked this journey in my twenties I would have simply saw "pretty things". Now, in my late forties, I saw the fingertips of naivete turn into the wisdom of experience as a life passed time in a strange, wonderful, but constantly changing world.

The dance of a deeply orange-read feather-like plant across a white ridged shell. The background unimportant except for the color and simplicity of it all. The youthful playfulness with bringing the pulse of the rich life of a simple blue flower into reality by ignoring the intricate detail and simply fondling the arching, curving, essence of its beauty.

Gradually walking around the rooms I felt this woman's life unfold through each painting, each subject she choose, and the clarity with which she put it in front of the viewer. I felt as if I had looked through her eyes and asked the similar questions about what is and what could be. As Georgia aged so did her wild innocence. She painted tall buildings and physical constructions surreal in the way they cut through the natural world.

Then, in the last room, there she was, Georgia, in all her plain, weathered beauty, photographed by the man, and men, who loved the woman holding the brush and painting the world around them.

When my traveling companion peeked into the small movie clip on Georgia's life, I declined. After walking through her artistic world I felt almost protective of the bond I had felt while Georgia explored and painted her way through life, I felt something sweet, poignant, childlike, and personal. I couldn't explain it as well as I could feel it. It was there in the room with me as other people walked around the room milling about and talking quietly. I entered a space inside myself that was private. Georgia was learning what textures, colors, and lines mean to the world and sharing it so that you, and I can, as a person, extend the understanding that everything external to the human body also has a living soul. Everything has a life of its own. I did not want anyone else to interpret Georgia's work for me. I wanted to maintain the purity of that connection standing before her life's work.

Afterwards, in a slight rain, my companion and I took in coffee at a sidewalk cafe. As we chatted a local woman passed by and heard a political comment being expressed between us and turned to join in the conversation. This woman was delightful both in her passion and her sharing. But most importantly she steered us on a wonderful journey through the area Georgia chose, a bit north of Santa Fe, as home. "It is absolutely gorgeous. The desert at its best." she said. "You should go."

Unfortunately we were heading South at the time and my heart felt rather bereft that I couldn't complete my enchanted experience. I have never been overly fond of the desert. Having been raised in the foothills of the Sierras and having lived in deeply wooded forests I have always seen the mountains, the green grass, and the long wise limbs of the trees as my totems, so to speak. This sudden deep affection for the desert was new and I felt the urge to explore it more fully.

My mother on the other hand, painted in her later life, and most frequently chose old barns, hay fields, and the desert for her fingers and mind to mingle together on canvas. I can remember watching her as a child. She explained to me, her child born in the middle of the desert, of the beauty she missed in her captive life as the wife of an alcoholic that she had experienced years later living in the desert. "You have to look beyond what you think it is. It is wonderfully beautiful. It has sunsets that are all red and orange. The ground blooms with color in the spring and fall. It is like no other place I've ever seen." It made me think, early on, about keeping my mind open to the idea that my idea of the world might not be mated to the actuality of the world itself.

My mother never told me what to do. She understood how headstrong I was and how much I liked the hands-on experiential approach. I could do everything myself in my mind. So she simply shared with me her wonderful humanity and compassion for the world around her with hope, no doubt, that it would guide me as I blundered through my childhood into a more rich experience as an adult. A more rich experience than what she encountered living with my father.

Indeed, inspired by my mother's brief sketches of faces, I took up a love of drawing the human form. Drawing my feelings on paper and canvas I had an escape from the harsh reality in my childhood home. I learned I could imagine anything and create it on paper. I could draw my dreams. I could draw my happiness. I could reach beyond what was at the moment and create anything I needed on the flat surface in front of me. Of course, eventually, we all, all of us in that home, went our separate ways, as our family fell apart like many homes do when torched with alcoholism. Yet I never left behind my art. Instead I reached throughout my young adulthood for the most perfect form and then only later in life found the joy of surrealism.

Yesterday, as we drove through the beautiful stunning yellow gold desert valley where Georgia O'Keefe lived and painted in her ranch home, I connected my mother's love for painting and the desert with her, my mother's, own need to paint her life on a canvas. Finally I felt the beauty of the world she was living in.

Nearby, we turned up a small dirt road and journeyed into an old abandoned pueblo with an adobe church standing in the middle of crumbled ruins. It seemed surreal to see such well tended aged beauty standing aside the weathered-torn bricks of abandonment all encircled by a dusty the narrow, well traveled, road.

People, many of them, had been here before. Now and then. But here today it stood still. Nothing but the wind moved. There wasn't another soul to be seen. It was not a scene of discovery but a scene of what had been.

We turned around in the courtyard and traveled back down the road onto the highway and looked over the valley and the cliffs that Georgia no doubt saw many days of her life. I realized that my mother had lived in her mind the same beauty that Georgia had found in the vivaciousness of her beloved desert. Only my mother never had the same opportunity to present it to the world. Instead she just gifted it to her children.

I will always love my mother for many things but especially for giving me the best of her world.

I received word Thursday my mother passed on. She left both worlds behind on Tuesday evening. The real world had faded steadily over the last ten years as she slipped into dementia but I always secretly hoped the world of the desert lived on for her someplace in her mind. We headed home immediately and went through Ghost Ranch, north of Abiquiu, Georgia's valley asI have described above on our way.

My mother, the last of ten McClendon children born to Estelle and Daniel McClendon, an eighth generation Californian, finished life in the beautiful desert of Colorado at the age of eighty-six.

She is and always will be the most beautiful woman in my entire world. On canvas and off.

I love you Mom. Sleep well. The desert will blossom again in the Spring.

Night 2 and 3: Jane and the Santa Fe Opera House

2009-10-06T20:18:00.007-05:00

Tonight we sleep in Santa Fe New Mexico. A beautiful town for those who haven't visited before. I've never been a particular fan of certain Spanish style architecture, in particular Spanish tile roofing, but I love the adobe style of Santa Fe. We came in from the North, staying in Alamosa last evening, and got a bird's eye view of the entire valley by perching up in the parking lot of the Santa Fe Opera House.

The Santa Fe Opera House sits on a significant rise outside of town. A beautiful adobe architecture with a sweeping gull like white roof open on the backside to the beautiful summer night air. Their season runs rather short from July 4th to August 29th but the reputation of quality extends way beyond the borders of New Mexico. My companion, a Canadian and very knowledgeable fan, designated it as a must stop. And of course, being a true gentleman, then gave me a good historic overview of the operas coming up the next season. Puccini's Madam Butterfly, and Mozart's Magic Flute will begin the festival in repertoire next season and I am hoping for a return run south to catch it after being caught up in the magic. My companion has an entire year to fill me in on the story details so I can catch his enthusiasm because I certainly do not have his affinity for multi-languages.

We started out this morning back tracking a bit to the Great Sand Dunes north of Alamosa Colorado along with the San Luis Valley Reservoir. The desert plains are beautiful in their bareness and at this time of year the place is truly barren of the human life types. I made more than one wrong turn or two along the way however and now I am pretty sure I know at least one town off the track where the economy is truly a "green" economy.

We covered a lot of ground today across the dry plains and dropped into New Mexico about noonish. We stopped at the Rio Grande Gorge outside of Taos to look at the local vendors' polished stones and jewelry and to stand, queasy, looking off the bridge to the famed river below. Personally I prefer the Black Canyon Gorge outside of Paonia Colorado for raw beauty and majestic cuts in the Earth yet this Gorge is still impressive.

The architecture around Taos is simply outstanding. If there weren't more tourists than ants in the town I would have loved to just stop and stare at more than a few precious examples. Taos reminds me of home a bit. It is the first time I've seen tie-dye on a thirty-plus since I moved to Greeley.

We pushed through Taos and into the beautiful canyons of color on the way to Santa Fe. I snapped a few good shots below. I love the contrasts and the simplicity of the beauty.

Okay, to finish off, the latest foodie place worth mentioning would be the Thai Restaurant we happened upon last evening in Alamosa. In the middle of the old town, western style like most Colorado districts, it was an unexpected jewel. We were tired from driving and just looking for something tasty.

Well we got it. My companion had a plate of crispy duck and I had a megalithic plate called Eight-Knight's Delight. It had every type of meat possible. Squid, Calamari, Crab, Oysters, Beef, Chicken, and a few things I have yet to identify. Along with fresh crunchy green beans, Chinese cabbage, carrots, and eggplant the meat was tossed into a nice spicy Thai sauce. It was wonderful.

But my favorite was a fresh crab spring roll stuffed with cilantro--yum. A wonderful treat totally unexpected in town that makes Greeley's economic development planning look stellar.

Night 1: Jane Sleeps in the Valley of the Gods

2009-10-04T20:12:00.006-05:00

Tonight I sleep in Colorado Springs or Valley of the Gods depending on how good the map is you are looking at. We had an easy travel day. The only real stop we made, besides the 23 mini-stops to tie down the luggage in the back of the truck, was a short turn through the Air Force Academy.

Dads always seem to forget to teach girls how to tie a good knot. It's kind of like learning to throw a ball. If a guy doesn't teach you it just plain doesn't work the same. It's kind of like guys who rarely learn how to do their laundry--they get the general idea of throwing the clothes in the washer and keeping the cat out of the washer, but they never remember to take out the bugs, lizards, dirt, sticks, and spitballs before turning on the machine. Oh and BLEACH is different from DETERGENT.

Anyhow, it was quick. It was cold. And the dude at the gate will forever be known in my house as Mr. Personality. I've had more personable interactions with the California Highway Patrol while being written up for going 75 mph in a state park (Yosemite--the easterm side--only marmots were at serious risk).

I felt the eerie air of Homeland Security lurking about as the gate guard requested my license, scanned it, walked to the rear of the truck and scanned my license plate. What are they feeding those boys anyway--Jack's magic beans?

Beautiful facility though architecturally. It definitely blends into the mountain rather like a cubicle honeycomb presentation with sweeping cathedral spears looming like some European Medieval Harry Potteresque church in the background. I was happy to see it, happier to leave, and I'm sure I'm on some national list in some black basement somewhere forever now.

I thought only briefly about taking a picture. Then I remembered Mr. Poisonality at the gate and decided to forgo any minimalistic over-hyped potential risk of being thrown under a spotlight and questioned about my intentions of visiting the visiting center of the Air Force Academy.

Can you tell I was not raised in Colorado yet?

Well enough for the paranoia onto Pike's Peak. I haven't spotted it yet. The clouds are sitting rather low on the mountains. Our first stop tomorrow though is Goodyear. My three day old brand spanking new set of tires have picked up a screw. I'm not happy. I was less happy when I read the warranty: Does NOT cover road hazards.

Joy.

We did a mainstream dinner tonight (for the foodies in the group). Chipolte's. I had never been before. Okay salsa not great. I love green fresh salsa. Okay burrito, carnitas with black beans and a mild salsa, but I've had better. Since I have no desire for the normal fast food it beat out McDonald's or Carl's but on a 1 to 10 I'd give it a 5. The business model looks pretty sound though. They keep it simple with fewer toppings. That's important.

There is a salsa bar I went to last time I visited Santa Fe. My dinner tonight reminded me I'd like to visit it again.

More tomorrow.

Jane Finds Tasty Loveland Eatery Enjoyable

2009-10-04T10:55:00.005-05:00

In response to my readers notes, I am working on the next in the series and will post as soon as I have the opportunity to finish up my research. In the meantime I am headed South to the Albuquerque Balloon Festival and will be blogging along the way. Stay tuned, I'll pick up the pace in a couple of days.

Another quick thought, I went to see the movie Julia & Julie last evening at Centerra Mall. A good movie. Meryl is brilliant in the character. But be sure to set aside the funds for a great dinner afterwards because you just can't do justice to Julia's memory at a hamburger joint. We went to Bonefish Grill in Loveland and it was wonderful. I indulged in Maryland crab cakes, thanks to a wonderfully personable bartender named Matt, and then a char-grilled spiced chicken breast wrapped in spinach with goat cheese and artichokes hearts, Jasmine rice, steamed veggies, and the House salad. I believe it was called "Lily's Chicken". Excellent, superb, wonderful dinner with good service capped off with a French Beaujolais 1997. (Yes, I mix my reds with chicken--sorry to those it makes queasy).

Beaujolais is very light, fruity, and easy to drink. It typically has aromas of pear, banana, and like smells. Because of its easy drinkability, there is a lot of cheap, jug wine - normally served in 46cl (note this is NOT 1.2 gallon as the Oxford Wine Guide says!) containers. On the other hand, the Crus produce fine quality, crafted wines. Beaujolais Nouveau is the first output from each harvest - ready exactly on the Third Thursday of November each year. It's a celebration across the world, as people gather to taste the first Beaujolais of the new season.

Matt enlightened us, after joining in a rousing reminiscence with my companion, a fellow east-coaster with an appreciation of crab houses, that the restaurant gets in soft-shelled crabs for a couple of weeks every year when they come into season. I plan on returning to try one. Even though I have lived extensively on the sea board I have not had this experience. It sounds like a great way to justify the specialty and expense by calling it a calcium laden dinner. I hear you eat the shell and all... yum--memories of Tom Hanks and Darryl Hannah were flashing through my mind.

If only I had a tail to swish.

I highly recommend the dining experience if you haven't been.

Also did the Egg and I for breakfast. Another wonderful localized treat. I hear they are in Greeley but we were in Fort Collins. Wonderful service, great atmosphere, and very good reasonably priced food. I had the goat cheese (yes this is a theme in my life) scramble.

What was really nice is the Egg and I appeared to employ the entire class of a local high school. The hostess looked thirteen and most the bus boys were later teens. Wonderful enthusiasm, politeness, and good service. It's nice to see that in the local youth and nice to see them employed on their Saturday mornings.

Good grief, I am beginning to sound like my Grandmother. I dearly loved my Grandmother so that is not all bad. But it is definitely interesting the change in the things I notice as I age. Twenty years ago I'd have been concentrating on the young men in their hiking gear congregating around the tables before venturing out on a weekend. Now I look at the various social groupings and basically people watch.

Oh well, off to Denver to do more of the same. I'll report back as soon as I can.

Part II: Greeley School District Latino Levy Blues

2009-09-27T05:52:00.014-05:00

My "tour guides" tell me it is hopeless. Greeley Colorado has acted conservatively since the first domesticated cow dropped onto the farmer's fields decades ago. Greeley's local systems will remain bound financially and ideologically by voters dedicated to shredding government involvement in just about anything. The current debate over the Greeley District 6 Mill Levy Override is just another notch on the conservative belt.

My response to this mindset is that I don't want to deal with labels. What creates a reasonable and sensible outcome for the citizens of Greeley still makes sense whatever lick-it-and-stick-it label one wishes to categorize it under.

If private industry could handle effective education without the profit interest driving every decision I'd be fine with that. If private industry could create an effective transportation system, that could service everyone at an affordable price, I'd be fine with that too. If the essence of community needs like energy, health care, and other minimalistic survival needs could be handled in the same way I'd agree with that too.

But private industry doesn't work well in the delivery of public goods (utilities, education, transportation, and so on) most simply because demand outstrips supply. Every person requires some regardless of ability to pay. Did it work better in 1940? Yes it did--much better.

There were less people to service. Less diversity of needs. Less developed complexity of needs recognized. The spiderweb of need just keeps spinning bigger as the population expands and society finds new ways to examine the threads. Supply, earlier in the century, could meet reasonable demand without a company having to become a megalithic gigantic-titantic bureaucratic system.

The investment in assets was reasonable in earlier decades and the costs to start up within the means of several companies. Competition could and did flourish. If you could put together the investment capital and had the management expertise on your team a person(s) could build a company to compete and turn a profit without government subsidies. Now the costs to enter the market are so high that competition is very limited and left to the "big guns" and their ever soaring needs to return a higher ROI to their investors.

And when the "big guns" can't do they are enticed through big government subsidies. The ultimate marriage producing the ultimate opportunity for corruption and inflated costs.

My point is that those days are gone. A centrally organized system, like the government, has to be used to create public systems like education because they have gone beyond the reach of the common working man and woman. And the only entity we have that can serve all the people (well most the people), most the time, without making decisions based on profit but on the good the economy receives from the value invested, is the government. (I can hear the boo and hisses from here.)

Not the prudent option for everything but the prudent option in this case. The way I look at it is that I can check big government by being a pragmatic and well educated voter. I can't check big corporate interests without being a big investor or a very powerful politician. Essentially, as a working class stiff, I am shut out when education, transportation, and other public goods are in private hands. I need these goods, my children need these goods, and these are the ladder to success in America. I, with others, can create much more effective regulation and oversight than any politicized federal agency by rallying like-minded people suffering like-minded consequences to vote out elected public officials overseeing any public system. The true beauty of democratic principles in action--equality. In private hands our youths' educational options are doomed to the powers of capitalism and the market forces. Not a pretty sight in my opinion.

My point here is that conservative politics do not preclude building a good education system. Managing the expense of the system is just prudent reasoning not politics. A dollar invested by taxpayers should show a dollar's worth of value at the very least. A dollar + over the long run if we are good at it. Managing the expense of the education system to cut off its blood supply so that less value is returned because it is a government based program is dubious reasoning and political ideology at its worst. It is snipping off your community nose in spite of its face.

So now it is 2009 and we all want to decide how Greeley District 6 will spend its money and whether it really needs more money to create the return investment expected (value to the community) by increasing taxes. Well how many local citizens really know how to manage and run a system this complex and this big? I don't. And I have management background and training. But I do know that I expect elected officials to hire the most qualified people available to do the job and I expect voters to keep a watch over whether that job is being done well or not.

The outcome is the pudding proof. And our pudding is on fire only it is not called a flambe.

In other words, so far the outcome is seriously lacking. The returns on the community investment, the value we are getting, are dubious at best.

Looking at the Greeley Mill Levy Override brings this issue square about in the face of Greeley citizens and taxpayers. If the objective is to create the most education value for the dollars invested then Greeley citizens and taxpayers certainly have every obligation to uncover why D6 performance continues to be sub par and that the plan being put forth by the Administration will remedy these issues just as fast as possible.

According to the Greeley Tribune this week Greeley District 6 School Board President Bruce Broderius infers that Greeley's low performance is due to specific low performers he'd like to be able to cut out of the test score statistics. I hope he intends to clarify this statement.

My response is that Greeley District Six has an obligation to all students and not just choice cuts the District would like to make. Additionally I've decided to take a look at some of the potential causes of the sub par performance of District 6 from my own perspective. I published a list in my previous post in this series. I'll take on the first four items here. Mostly because the first four are the easiest to answer.

Is the performance problem related to the notion that Greeley is a unique district?
Is the performance problem related to the collective IQ of the students?
Is the performance problem related to the collective IQ of the parents?
Is the performance problem related to the collective IQ of the community?

Really this is just one question. "Is it us?"

I'll just cut to the chase here and address the racism inherent in this discussion and one which many, including authority figures and media figures, are want to use to distract from the real problem at hand. Other districts in Colorado also have high minority populations and immigrant populations without the same performance issues. Additionally Greeley already receives more funding than other local districts, like Poudre, that show a 14% Latino population in their school district. Greeley has a 44% identified Latino population.

Greeley Federal Funds in 05/06 Per Student $845.
Poudre Federal Funds in 05/06 Per Student $562.

Greeley Local Funds in 05/06 Per Student $2,826.
Poudre Local Funds in 05/06 Per Student $5,274.

Greeley State Funds in 05/06 Per Student $4,376.
Poudre State Funds in 05/06 Per Student $3,257.

Okay, close your eyes. Let's take a closer look at what's happening in relationship to these funding dollars. Here come the numbers.

This section will look at a comparison between the Greeley District Six costs and that of the Poudre District. I use ratios to examine the numerical relationship below because Poudre had about thirty five thousand students in 05/06 while Geeley had a bit over twenty-four thousand. We have to compare apples to apples as much as possible and not oranges to apples.

Administratively District 6 with 24,809 students is running .0006 administrators per student while Poudre Valley with 35,630 students is running .0005 administrators per student. However District Administrative support in Poudre is higher at .0046 per student than Greeley's Administrative support which is at .0038. What entails District Administrator support can very widely between districts. One district might hire Vice Principal's for instance whose job duties are very isolated while others may hire for the same position and also assign teaching duties.

Essentially the above ratios are one indicator that Poudre School District is performing more efficiently, in general, than Greeley District Six. What it does suggest is that Poudre is doing more per dollar and returning more value per taxpayer dollar spent based on testing results.

In this regard it is understandable that the District Six Board and Administrators would want to defend its performance achievement by claiming the district has additional burdens of low performing students. In response I'd ask if the additional resources, both Federal and State, which have been received (see above) are meant to provide for this difference, in part or in whole--if the special need indeed exists. With these numbers it would be possible to construct a similar ratio for special instructional services and would give an idea how these monies are being used. If the additional revenue sources have been provided and special services are not being provided I'd imagine that would be a big issue. If there are additional monies and they've been allotted accordingly then there should be no reason to use the "underperforming" populations as a scape goat for general poor performance.

At present I do not have these statistics on LEP and/or IEP learners. If anyone wants to provide them I'd be grateful.

Personally I have no issue with seeing the variety of performance issues related with LEP students or second-language students as a subsection of performance. Unfortunately though these figures are not being reported by either Greeley District Six or Poudre to the National Statistics site or the NCES site is withholding this information. However Greeley District Six, according to the NCES site for 2005/2006, as I stated above, had about forty-four percent of students identified as being of Latino origin to Poudre's 14%.

It is a thin line between inferring that all Latino students are low performers and saying that students with second-language development issues are performance issues. That 44% percent figure means very little without accurate figures on which students are nonnative citizens or first generation immigrants. Racism is not something this District wants to actively promote anymore than it does tacitly already through exclusion of programs directed specifically at migrant and low performance students.

I don't see how anyone can live in Greeley and not be painfully aware of the racial stigma and divides which exist in this city. Programs that have racial implications, probably in the average Greeley citizen's mindset, have been banned, disingenuously dismissed, renamed, and a host of other politically opportunistic political tactics used to avoid creating the very programs that would hopefully address some of the nonperformance issues.

But you will be happy to know the school board is aiming to produce more charter schools which ultimately tend to serve the top performers.

The School Board isn't the only entity at fault here. The citizens of Greeley create this environment and, I'll argue a bit wildly, through their elected officials have institutionalized the scape goat mentality in order to give free reign to arguments keeping government and taxation minimalistic.

Guess what Greeley--It doesn't work in education. Education is an investment. The more you invest the more harvest this community will reap.

As investment examples, in 2005/06 Poudre paid out in salaries per student 24,185.00 Greeley paid out in salaries 17,547.5 per student. Greeley by comparison is running much lower in salary dollars spent per student.

Greeley looks on paper like it is the prudent investor but in reality the job just is not getting done. So which administration/community is the wiser investor?

It indeed may very well be that "we" are the problem. At least in part. But not in the way expedient local mindsets may think. While we probably don't suffer from lower intelligence quotients in general we do suffer from political ideologies applied with two wide a brush stroke. The problem may be the fact that the collective culture of Greeley is being harvested by our youth. And the harvest has turned out to be only "middlin' pickins".

I'll continue this conversation in Part III of this series. if you've got a beef with a statistic--let me know. It wasn't my favorite course.

Greeley School District Six Mill Levy Blues

2009-09-24T22:28:00.006-05:00

Writing about the Mill Levy Override in Greeley Colorado's District 6 makes me really uncomfortable in my own skin. Mostly because I believe anything the community of Greeley can do to help District 6 schools improve should be done. When a community creates a climate of education good things happen. When it doesn't stagnation sets in. People create divides and develop cultural barriers to success. Children with great potential go undeveloped and unrewarded. Children who desperately need support and help get shuffled off to the corner. Yet, before I can simply just vote yes, I still have some lingering doubts and questions about just what this Mill Levy is designed to produce other than additional assets like textbooks and security systems.

Of course the exaggerated claims about the Mill Levy, from various sources, having been pouring out about how classroom size will grow or not depending on the vote. How Kindergartners will be left adrift after tea time every day. How miserable it is for social tweeners and teens to share books and learn cooperative time management skills. How, even though there really isn't a growing gang problem in District 6, we need security cameras so the parents feel safer. And how the heaven and stars can start falling but not one teacher will get one dime of the Mill Levy but teacher's aides, without the real-deal teaching credential, will be hired to help lower the teacher's burden.

As someone likes to say, "You get what you pay for."

Or do you?

What no one really seems to want to talk about is whether or not this Mill Levy will produce better learning results for our kids. Isn't that the operative goal we are all striving for as a community? Perhaps it is my reality that is skewed but it looks to me like we've basically drawn a 2 inch target on a huge red school barn and are standing ten miles away with shotgun in hand trying to hit it.

Sounds ludicrous? That is my point. Every one is shooting at something but no one really wants to talk about whether or not they are hitting that 2 inch target. Just as long as they get their shot off everything is handy-dandy. The School Board is hollering "Trust Us". The Administration is hollering "Support Us". The media arm is hollering "Fire-pay to put it out." Parents are hollering "Fix it" while the community grouses "Make Us"!

Greeley is caught up in the idea of improving education but not in the action of improving education. That action begins with the community idea that education is THEE priority.

Education takes a lot more than one kid in a classroom with a book in hand and a teacher calling home every time the kid looks out the window. We all know that by now, right? We've heard for years how parents should get involved. Yes, somewhere between working fourteen hours a day, taking the dog to the vet, doing community service for that overdose of Prozac, pasting up flyers for next city council election cycle, baking treats for the girl scout meetings, ballet lessons, soccer practice, trading playtimes and babysitting out with the neighbor, cooking that eight course organic nutritional meal, refurbishing the caulking before the next storm, making sure the lawn stays a pretty shade of green for the neighbors, and listening to the spouse grouse about those little lines starting to bag under the eyes, you, yes YOU, are supposed to make sure you are reading to your child at least a half an hour every night and that the science project you know you'll being doing most of, gets done on time and turned into the teacher, and that your kid gets up every morning to eat a healthy breakfast on time, gets dressed in the designer jeans without resident gang colors anywhere to be seen, plus makes it to school with a happy-sunny face every single day. Only then can you truly earn the badge of "responsible parent" according to the education community.

But I digress into reality. Back to my point.

What hasn't been fully addressed is the role community plays in building a healthy respect for the education process. And by community I don't just mean grandma and grandpa with aunts and uncles and anyone else your kid drags to the play at the local schoolhouse. I mean everyone--the business owners, the workers, the retirees, the unemployed, the illegals, the legals, the pseudo human beings, and the real human beings. Those who wear Prada and those who don't. Those who play poker and those who don't. Those that go to church on Sunday and those that show up just for the Hail-Mary at the end of the show. The dregs under the bridges and the all-mighty sitting in the resident temples. Single, married, unmarried, sort-of-married, married-until-last-night, divorced, over-the-hill, and under-the-hill. Yes, even the corporate executives at the slimy snail-snotting JBS Swift company are included here.

Everyone.

Education is an investment. It is an investment in the future. Today's Greeley District 6 kids are our future. All of us have a stake in this game. If Greeley expects to have good community leaders in the future who can handle the world of technology, the world of climate change, the world of energy crisis, the world of ever expanding population, then it needs to create these leaders. They don't create themselves.

This is the REASON to pay money for education. It creates a return on your investment. Alone, few but the most elite, would ever put forth the money to educate their children. This is why you get societies where only categories and groups of kids (usually by gender) get sent to school. Collectively, by uniting our resources, we create benefits for the individual AND for the group--our future.

One of the things I commonly overhear is "My kid goes to a Charter School." "My kid goes to the Christian Center." "My kid goes ....." Fill in the blanks. The problem with this type of thinking is not the selfish myopia so much but the selfish consequences we all pay for this single-minded mentality in the future.

If YOUR kid becomes a civic leader and all he/she has to work with are candy-crunching gang-banging cheering Prada-clothed undereducated semi-achievers there will be a problem. Maybe, just maybe, if your house is built high enough on a hill with gates around it you might not have to pay the consequences. But you can bet sooner or later one of your relatives will. It won't matter a lot if your kid came out of Harvard. Trust me. America may have been built on rugged individualism but now we are all in it together. You can cross America by yourself but one person can't fix a broken education system.

Which brings me to another point. What is really wrong in District 6? Is anything really wrong? Okay I mean besides the fact that the school board candidates running are looking like fresh ditzes out of a Cracker-Jack box.

These are all things that make me indecisive about the Mill Levy.

I've done some investigation. I know that the District is trying to change things around. They have a new math series coming online for example. They've hired a new (maybe not so new any longer) administrator and have brought in some new teaching talent. They have worked on developing a governance plan for the Board. They are looking at new testing series and how to perform better on old ones. They cleaned up their act by the State levels and received a brownie badge for doing so.

In the meantime they are stifling District 6 teachers on pay negotiations (there was a lock-out when the Union made an attempt to talk to their own teachers today), pushing a Mill Levy tax onto a public unready to receive it, and to my knowledge are pretty entrenched in the idea of not letting the public know just how bad the gangs are getting inside the schools. I won't even go into the rah-rah cheerleading tag-team District 6 and the Greeley Tribune are running together.

I've also combed through District 6's strategic plan (note: that is not the Governance plan). It is a nicely formatted, Susie-let-me-put-the-sunshine-here, kind of plan. It did not inspire me that the Administration has any more grasp on what the remedy may be for the problems showing up on the test scores than I do.

So I ask myself the following question. Why can't Greeley District 6 perform up to par with other similar school districts in the State of Colorado?

Is the performance problem related to the notion that Greeley is a unique district?
Is the performance problem related to the collective IQ of the students?
Is the performance problem related to the collective IQ of the parents?
Is the performance problem related to the collective IQ of the community?
Is the performance problem related to a lack of support materials?
Is the performance problem related to the transitory immigrant population?
Is the performance problem related to ineffective administration?
Is the performance problem related to wages and quality of people hired?
Is the performance problem a direct correlation to money?

I plan on answering these questions throughout the next week. In the meantime readers thoughts are welcome. Janepaudaux@gmail.com

In the meantime, let me add, I know of at least one excellent teacher that is talking about leaving District 6. She is not excellent just by my standards but by the standards of her students, peers, and parents of her students. Her test scores also give her the red tape for us to affirm her greatness as well as if we needed it.

She is burnt out. Between the stress of the classroom gang bangers, the general challenges of teaching, the District wage non-negotiations, she had the poor timing of overhearing two local women talking to their kids about how horribly they were treated by teachers. Too much homework! Too strict on time demands! Over paid! Undereducated!

For me, I have always been a firm believer that kids model after their parents. If the parents and other adults in the community do not show respect for educators, let alone the idea and concept of education, then is it reasonable to expect that kids will be showing up in the classroom ready and eager to learn? In today's society what does respect cost? It costs a big fancy house, lots of designer clothes, a fast sleek new sedan, and membership at the local country-club. You don't get that on a teacher's salary. You get that on an administrator's salary.

We make our own beds and then we complain when we have to sleep in them.

This is why it is so hard for me to write about the Mill Levy. Good blankets make for a nicer, warmer bed. It is much easier to get out of bed in the morning after a good night's sleep. I'd really like to vote for the Mill Levy--because it does provide a couple of warm blankets for the local students. But first, I think, I need to answer the questions above and figure out just how much money or time it is going to take to pull this District into full performance and/or clean up its poor image on the streets of Greeley Colorado.

Greeley Colorado's Future--the SAT's Are In

Greeley Mill Levy Override Requires Trust

The Parable of Biting the Prada Apple: Math Reform

Greeley District Six Mill Levy: Jane's Thumb Critique

A Handy-Dandy New Tool For Greeley Citizens

A Review of Greeley's New School Data Tool

Jane's Beginning Thoughts on the Mill Levy

District 6 Teacher Union Negotiations

Greeley District 6 Performance Check

Northern Colorado Mimics Los Angeles Basin

2009-09-17T12:31:00.007-05:00

For a time now, as I drive around Northern Colorado (usually lost), I have pondered the region's seemingly insatiable desire to become the Rockies version of the Los Angeles basin. Sprawling developments plopped in the middle of fields of corn, aquifers seemingly unthought of as raging boom town populations dispersed across the region, economic development agencies actively promoting specialized futures for some cities, and seemingly irrational (or complete lack thereof) zoning regulations.

Colorado will be the ultimate parody of the Los Angeles basin. Minus of course the critical environmental factor will most likely be water rather than bad, cough, air trapped into a basin. Boulder can play Beverly Hills 90210. Fort Collins can be the new blended good-side of Hollywood and Granada Hills. Loveland as Simi Valley with Greeley as Newhall and Neanderthal land. I'm just not quite sure where to stereotype Denver in yet. I haven't spent enough time in town I guess.

What puzzles me however is why the voters and citizens of Colorado are sitting back and watching it sprawl. I've picked up on the whole "We are the Libertarians" thing. I've recognized the whole neanderthallic "Tea Party" concepts. But for years I have heard my ninety-five year-ol ranching uncle talking about ways to tie all his properties up in a land trust so "the blankity-blank develops won't get their hands on it once I die." This from the most die hard conservative bastion of fiscal, social, and emotional constraint I've ever heard tell of. My uncle tells stories of watching men hang in "hangtown" California. Strung up for their color, for looking wrong at the right citizen, or because someone just plain didn't like them. "They let 'em swing from the porch of the hardware store."

Okay so environmentalist attitudes and progressive politics do not necessarily have to go hand in hand. But yet the area ranchers and farmers seem quite subdued in Northern Colorado. Where I come from the farmers, the ranchers, and the citizens would be armed with hayforks and pitchforks and demanding their own bizarro show called the "Town Hall".

My tour guides suggest this complacency is due to the fact the farmers and ranchers are struggling so hard that they may yet need the developers and their money if the big farm subsidies sink the small Mom and Pop ship any further. In my view a few more monopolistic-megalithlic-snail-snotter corporations controlling the markets--like our not so beloved JBS Swift and the bell will be tolling for those small Mom and Pops.

Another suggestion that has come my way is that "..so what... that's what's going to happen and we'll just have to live with it...".

I never buy into the idea that development can't be organized and planned. If you are working class or fixed residents of the area it is a prudent thing to keep a watchful eye out for what the future is developing for your quality of life. I do however buy into the notion it takes a lot of political clout, political power, economic power, or in lieu of these things, voter outrage and collective interest to create change.

Today, which brings me a few belated paragraphs later to my point, I have picked up another potential clue about the historic tendencies in Colorado that clear some of the fuzz off my puzzle. President Bush's Interior Cabinet Secretary is being investigated by Congress for potentially being in bed, and obviously enjoying it, with big corporate energy interests. The investigators of the very same Department of the Interior which she led turned her over to the Justice Department. That is NOT a good sign. Same said Secretary, Ms. Norton, previously served as Colorado's Attorney General.

I am just shocked. Aren't you? Who'd guess? The idea that such a conservative area would have the same elemental types of corrupt influences in government as the liberal state I just left behind. The players are different. The issues are different. But the motives stay the same.

Maybe we are all much more culpable, together, for the nation's spiral into gross special-interests than we would like to acknowledge. At least on the surface.

Here's a clip from the main article from the Los Angeles Times.

Interior Department investigators referred the case to the Justice Department after concluding that there was sufficient evidence of potential illegal conduct, according to federal law enforcement and Interior officials. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive and confidential nature of the case.

Those officials said the referral was based on an already comprehensive Interior Department investigation that included interviews with numerous Interior employees. The Justice Department has assigned prosecutors from its public integrity section and the U.S. attorney's office in Washington to the case.

Norton, 55, was President Bush's first Interior secretary. She had worked as an Interior Department attorney before being elected Colorado's attorney general. Later, as a private lawyer, she represented mining, timber and oil companies.

As Interior secretary, she embraced an industry-friendly approach to environmental regulation that she called "cooperative conservation" and pushed the department to open more public land for energy production.

Shifting Tides of American Politic Rock Healthcare Boat

2009-09-11T04:12:00.015-05:00

The tension is in the air. It is between friends. It is in the workplace. It is in the grocery store. We have a jobless economic recovery in our front window and a nasty ideological debate on health care going on in this country rattling all the other windows in our glass houses. Plus we have the latent and aging racists and monarchists in our society bubbling over the top of the kettle throwing scare tactics, guns, Fox News pundits, and labels around like the circus has come to town. Plus the media is ducking responsibility for any worthy journalism on the topic hoping to fend off being the next cartel in line after the insurance industry gets spanked.

None of the above, by itself, is my biggest worry though. I'm always a survivor. I crave a good challenge. But the above are simply symptomatic of the change afoot in the American current. The waterfall is just coming into view and I am not so sure I want to think about what lies ahead. However, what I figure I can't survive is the changing politic in America.

My biggest worry is that America has lost touch with those who struggle in ways those with wealth rarely experience. American institutions have such vast markets that these institutions and the supporting businesses do not have any need or real incentive to cover the lower end of market spectrum. There is plenty of profit to be had by carving up the middle and upper class and developing new markets around the world. Hence needs go unmet if you are on the lower end of the market.

The American economy has done a great job of covering the most people's needs during the 20th century. But now it finds itself, albeit the consequence of too much wealth and population expansion, rather than too little capital, in a parallel situation to third world countries. Stagnated economies or underdeveloped nations have long sufferred their citizens on the lower end of the economic stratum being clobbered by those above. Basically it is a consequence that few "above" care, or need to care, because their cash needs are being met without caring. This is self interested capitalism at its best. Couple, this cash based disconnect, with government stepping out of the arena and either removing or looking the other way on almost all economic regulation between the players under the proclomation of the free market and "government is never a good thing". The resulting consequence is the smoldering embers of standard discontent in a society become open flames.

Furthermore, I will argue, that emotional or intellectual needs in modern American society can mostly be purchased with enough cash so these societal checks and balances have also been substantially eroded. Just ask yourself the question how many families or neighbors you know would approve of their son or daughter currying favor in their job or relationship for monetary gain? There isn't a lot of need to look over the backyard fence at how the neighbors are doing anymore unless their McMansion casts a shadow on yours.

Instead of being pushed to perform in this society I simply feel obligated to produce cash. For myself and for others. There aren't really any ethics or scope of morality attached to the production of that cash just as long as the cash gets produced. This has become the ethereal societal expectation from my fellow citizens. Basically I can, and they can, do as they please as long as they don't harm any little children and as long as they are making money for others as well as their own good. If one is simply making money mostly for their nepotistic "own" that can be a little sketchy too. Especially if caught. Just ask Bernie Madoff.

Now maybe I grew up in the wrong household but as a child I was raised with the expectation that I would be a productive human being. That demand was inclusive of nurturing my own well being and paying my own bills and also giving to others whenever possible so that, together, we all could be safe, healthy, and potentially happy. Hard work was simply an expectation in my working class family. It was how you lived. Whether it produced a lot of cash or just enough to live on--if you did your job well and with integrity then you had met your societal obligation. My father may have been a raging abusive alcoholic but he got up every morning and put in a very effective eighteen-hour weekday six days a week. He helped make the owners of the company very wealthy over a number of years.

As an adult I have learned that people are raised with many variant expectations of their own contribution to society dependent on cultural, familial, and even geographical factors. I guess I just never assumed that this nation would turn its back on people who struggle every day to do their best but don't acquire a lot of wealth mostly because capitalism doesn't value their skills, or what they have to give, as much as they do the person's next door. We pay our sports heroes and bankers mega-millions yet we pay the people who still can dig a ditch, pick up our trash, or take care of our loved ones only enough to meet minimal needs.

First insurance became a response to disaster. Ben Franklin got it right. If your home burned down the potential for replacing the shelter was improbable in times when there was minimal capital in a community. Your neighbors meant everything in a disaster not simply for the immediate response but to stabilize your future. Insurance made a lot of sense to pool the collective capital and lower the risk.

Then insurance became a need generalized to other necessities and larger investments. It at least made a little bit of sense that if you had something worth protecting you wanted it protected. Especially so from those with nothing to protect who might be a little less careful about their approach on life. It also still serviced those caught unaware by natural or man-made disasters.

Then insurance became an institution. A distinguishing and stablizing concept especially rewarding and productive for the middle class. A requirement in many states to be held up by legislation created by those with secure housing, food and water supplies, and a good education. Many legislators simply members of the "Lucy Sperm Club" themselves. By far our legislators and representatives reflect people in our society who have been equipped, mostly by birth, with the assets that open doors to success and stability. The rest of us have to clear a path to the doors and earn our keys to the locks.

Once institutionalized insurance companies have been kissing home plate. The government stepped in to cover 9/11 victims, the vast majority already well healed, to augment and supersede their insurance companies from taking them to court, where it would be plainly pointed out that most those insurance contracts, now required, put a clause in regarding "acts of war" and, too frequently, acts of Mother Nature. The nation stood by watching the misfortunes of families in Katrina. Those of lesser economic means were left without the cash to hire effective attorneys. We stood by and watched while the Katrina victims' insurance companies twisted previous promises like writhing knotted snakes to get out of fulfilling those obligations.

A century ago American media made stars out of those who worked hard and struggled to overcome adversity. As the struggle of life became less and less a standard and the wealth accumulated in families to be passed on to the generations that followed our taste for common heroes rising through the ranks fell to the wayside. The national focus tended more to those whose status came with birth or had already been achieved. The process was not the point of interest any longer. The cool factor became less about the struggle and more about the glitz and glam of the perceived treasures. The glorification of the process and struggle of obtaining status faded as Americans began to live vicariously through the society and entertainment pages.

We drive the media and we become our media. It tends to be a closed ecosystem.

I, personally, cannot think of a group that emulates, in the majority, this modern American representation of paper made icons better than Congress itself. Our for-profit media has not missed out on following the societal trends for opportunistic gains as much as for public information. It has followed these political leaders and icons for decades and held them up for emulation. House and Garden, GQ, Money, INC., Lives of the Rich and Famous, People Magazine, and so on.

Now health care, hopping into bed with its sugar-daddy, has become an extension of the institution of insurance. The idea that people, when sick, should be tended and looked after to be made well again simply because they are a fellow human being has fallen by the wayside. Senator Max Baucus' finance bill wanted every person who could not pay for health care insurance to pay $3,800. as a fine for not participating in the good enrichment of society. The moral assumption reads "If you can't pay to stay alive then obviously your not worth keeping around."

Prisoners on death row get public paid health care. People who get minimum wage get the death sentence. Great idea Senator Baucus. When people are allowed to go homestead a piece of land, cut down their own trees, plant their own vegetables, and not be fined for doing so then maybe, just maybe, it makes sense to force people with little economic means in the first place to pay to participate in the great Baucus society twisted out of the one LBJ once stood over. At least they won't have to lose their homes or go without groceries to make you feel secure in your gilded mansions at night. Or is the general idea here to enslave or outlaw people without means? Can we make the ugliness we don't like to look at go away like the unwanted bags under our eyes? Can we simply pay for someone to make everything look good on the surface and ignore the reality of the situation?

This is what frightens me the most about present day America. Watching the powerful in the Congress and the Obama Administration who seemingly think that coming up with $3,800 is within every person's means. What happens to a nation when its leaders become so out of touch with the workers that actually make the infrastructure of the system go round?

In my world Senator Baucus should have been embarrassed to even whisper such a proposal behind closed doors. We take out public servants who admit to canoodling with lobbyists in the bedroom but we leave in those who would loosen the Hound of the Baskervilles onto the throats of good honest hard working people with less accumulated wealth. We care about the boundaries and civilities of sex and marriage but not ALL the people those marriages produce. Simply because the poor are asking to have a stake and share in the essentials that society demands BEFORE a person can be a fully fledged participant in the economy we are to be fined.

Of course that is only if President Obama manages to get his way and there is some type of viable public option. Which is what the Senate Finance bill is looking to ensure doesn't happen. Senator Baucus is going to make absolute sure that the unworthy, meaning those without accumulated wealth, will suffer some type of second class citizenship if the "Have's" will be footing any part of the bill.

Suddenly I don't need to be walking inside a Castle in the Rhineland to get a feel for what it was like to be medieval peasantry. I can get it all right here in America in 2009. If health care has become a requirement to participate in the education system, to get a decent job, to be allowed to board public transportation, and just to be treated civil in society then society needs to make health care readily available to everyone they expect to participate. If not then the poor should be allowed to stake out a living space where ever they please without fines and stigma. A street corner, under bridges, in tent cities, where ever they can survive. Participation in society is already not an option. Does it also have to come with a fine for not being able to afford membership dues when a person is being actively excluded on many levels from full participation? It doesn't make sense unless we go back to an agrarian society where Senator Baucus can have his own fiefdom.

The only marker of a decent man or woman is not the property he or she owns Senator.

As an alternative we could just put every one making less than a living wage in America on a bus and send them to Canada. It would make governing so much easier for the insurance-controlled Congressional elite. At least Canada has a sense of humanity toward their own even if they would turn the buses away. America used to be the champion of humanitarianism throughout the world. How low we have sunk that we can't even champion our own.

A poor person cannot create their own economy of scale to lower costs. Nor can individuals without many collective resources easily organize political power for their own benefit. Poor people have little representation in Congress because they cannot pay to purchase their senator and representatives ears or their integrity. And often, strangely enough, the lower economic classes suffer from roadblocks on the way to polling. Not to mention that Congress, the Senate the House Richie-Rich built, is heavily invested in the industries which make a lot of their wealth from the backs of labor. Businesses, banks especially, earn a large bulk of their wealth and profit by charging the poor excessive fees, surcharges, and usury interest rates.

Good credit has also become a need for survival. Try having a health care crisis and keeping your stellar credit rating. It has brought more than one middle class Joe into the sewers with the unwashed masses. In many jobs there are so many qualified applicants that the employers screen out those with health care issues and those with poor credit. The public education system has been repeatedly raped by financial conservatives over the past three decades so it can produce only the minimal cloned workers from the masses entering the system. Higher education has become increasingly more and more difficult to access.

In short, the competition for the higher status in society, is being systematically eliminated. Capitalism is all about competition and so is the innate shadow self of humankind. Check-mate goes to the wealthy elite and the others in this country whom they have managed to convince that government is never a good thing and thus compel these citizens in many cases to vote against their own true self-interest.

Left unchecked, both of these mechanisms, bring out cycles of destruction which the world has seen before. Let's just hope we are not doomed to repeat our mistakes of ego.

President Obama is right to make health care a moral argument. The problem still remains that he needs to let us know which side of the moral ideology he is keeping tune with rather than vaguely chastizing both ends of the spectrum. One end has all the power Mr. President and the other end has most of the day to day burdens and consequences.

If the Senate Finance Committee doesn't come up with a plan for all the people please don't just send them back to their room without dinner Mr. President. Publically expose their strategic posturing for what it really is--grotesque, devisive, and a fuedal elitism designed to reappoint and legitimize through the hands of government a second class citizenship for the peasants in America and a ruling first-class citizenship for the insurance industry, corporate monopolies, and the blue blood. Let them hang for social canoodling regardless whether a Republican, a Democrat, or a Republican in Democratic fuedal drag.

Let's just hope he gets a bill in front of him that can knit this nation of opposing forces and ideologies together for another two hundred years. Then President Obama will have done his job well, in my view, and delivered full value on his own obligation to society.

Greeley District 6 School Board Election: Brave Souls Seeking Hot Seats

2009-09-10T17:50:00.012-05:00

It is time for Greeley Colorado's District 6 School Board elections to take place. First out of the dugout are Doug Kershaw and Brett Reese. These are the new kids on the block. Judy Kron, Doug Lidiak, Linda Trimberger are existing members and already serving, whether elected or appointed, and are looking for voter approval.

I am not going to point to profiles for the candidates until I can find a good one for every one. The Tribune has minimalistic values they are using to describe the candidates. The District 6 website has profiles on the existing members. I'd like to give the new "kids" time to get their public relation materials up and out before I link to anything. Incumbents always have an advantage because they have name recognition.

In the meantime I've been trying to sort out whether the new alternative education high school Trademark West that just opened pulled a couple of hundred low performing kids off the progress reports for District 6. That certainly would help give a positive impression of the District. And, if it isn't true and the stats issued to the public are correct then that is a deflation of my argument that the District isn't putting a heck of a lot of focus on low-level performers.

But I will get into a heavier critique the closer to ballot day. Right now I thought it might be prudent to publish what voters need to be looking for as qualities and skills in their educational leadership. Good hair, good teeth, and over six feet tall really doesn't do it. I went to grade school and I know it is a popularity contest when running for a public position in grade school but it would be really nice if we could put bags over every body's head and just vote for the people who can get the job done. District 6 needs the community to do it's job. The kids graduating from District 6 need voters to get beyond the special interest politics and get as much support for effective management on board as possible.

I don't think there are many people around town who will argue that point with me.

So here is my first post in a series on Greeley's District 6 School Board election. this post will concentrate on the qualities suggested for effective school board members.

First a quick view of what the school board's primary responsibilities are all about. (If you have one to add to the list give me an email please).

Set the vision and goals for the district (effective goal setting leads to objective achievement and objective achievement leads to vision achievement in both the short term and into the future. Basically it keeps the ship heading to the right port without wasting a lot of money trying to get to London by going around the Cape Horn, so to speak.)
Adopt policies that give the district direction to set priorities and achieve its goals (In my personal view this is a key quality. A wily administrator can maneuver policies in front of a Board that will meet their personal agenda. While their personal agenda might, or might not, be a set of good ideas it is important that Board members have enough experience with management practices (not necessarily education specific) to watch out for this type of manipulation and truly ensure that the Board is making good policy decisions that work for everybody--management included, but concentrate on strategies that will achieve the best for the students and bring the vision into the right port.)
Adopt and oversee the annual budget (A school budget isn't like your personal checkbook. It is a complex, dynamic, and complicated guide.)
Manage the collective bargaining process for employees of the district (key to quality personnel and key to controlling costs--a double edge sword).
Hire and evaluate the superintendent (The superintendent is key and the one in District 6 makes nearly $185,000 + perks. That's almost half of the base salary President Obama gets for running the leading nation of the free world. The board needs to expect, demand, and make accountable their employee for returning superior service to the community's education system which reflects the community's investment. The superintendent will set the tone and culture for all District 6 employees--including teachers. Not a small job in and by itself.)

Which leads us to a few statements on what type of skills and qualities will be required for the school board candidates to possess. There are many different regional and state views, recommendations, and discussions on the topic. One of the best resources I have ever used comes from Jossey-Bass. I have used this company's textbooks for other work as well and they produce a high quality product. If you have one, another skill or quality, to add, again, please send me an email or post a comment. Clicking on the top link will take you to one site on the topic. There are several with many ideas.

It takes a lot of work to build an effective school board. Time spent reading, studying, attending board governance lectures, building a good board governance policy, and simply understanding how a good board works together and delegates to its employee. Relating to the community generally comes with trial and error plus a witch-hunt now and again.

Functioning Cohesively as Group
A healthy decision-making process naturally flows from board members working together to fulfill their responsibilities. When school board members gel as a unit, they exhibit many characteristics of other well-functioning groups: a shared respect and trust that recognizes the contribution of each individual, a feeling of cohesiveness, shared goals for the board, able leadership within the board (often the board president), shared values, and agreement on the board's operating rules.
Exercising Appropriate Authority
In discussing their ability to act effectively, board members speak of the need to negotiate the delicate balance between exercising authority and supporting the school district's chief executive. Traditional governance wisdom suggests that you hire the best chief executive and then get out of his or her way. Board interviews indicate that it's not that simple. The superintendent's recommendation may be clearly contrary to the board's sense of what is important or supported by the community, or the superintendent may violate prior understanding of proposed action. In these are other situations, boards feel they must exercise independent authority.
Connecting to the Community
The board serves as a liaison between the district and the community. An effective board understands what the community wants and explains to the community what it believes to be in the best interest of children.
The process works both ways. The long-established tradition of local control of education is based on the value of the community shaping its schools and of the schools "belonging" to the community. This close relationship contributes to greater community participation in the education of its children and interest in how the schools operate. Even in the context of current times, which see a decline in the number of households with school-age children, fewer volunteers, and a diminishing respect for public schools, interest in education is intense.
As communities become more diverse, so do their values. Building understanding and support becomes an increasing challenge. The board's role in explaining actions to the community and ensuring consideration of all points of view becomes increasingly important.
Working Toward Board Improvement
When boards talk about effectiveness, one area they center on is self-improvement. This shouldn't be surprising. Forty percent of board members have three or fewer years of experience. They say in interviews that it takes them two years to understand their board roles well enough to be fully effective. Furthermore, it is through ad hoc, unplanned contact with other board members and the superintendent that they learn much of what they know.
Acting Strategically
Board members discuss and resolve issues that are central to helping children learn. They plan systematically and for the long term, taking into consideration the needs and concerns of internal and external constituents, all the while balancing reality and politics. They match plans against results. They organize responsibilities and authority between superintendent and the board to adjust for strengths and weaknesses. Boards that can accomplish these tasks can deal effectively with crises, especially when they have no choice but to act.

Now all we need to find out is if each candidate can fit this bill. I'll try to find email addresses for the new candidates and see if I can get statements from them. I can get the incumbent email addresses from the District 6 website and I'll forward this posting to each one also in case they would like to respond. I'll have to work for the other two emails. In the meantime if someone has got 'em.... please pass the potatoes via phone or email. Thanks.

Obama's Health Care Speech: Senator Baucus and His Prissy Elitist Underclothing

2009-09-10T00:04:00.007-05:00

A toast to President Obama. He's pulled the roast out of the fire and stuffed the apple into the mouths of Congress to chew on. Senator Baucus please review Obama's words carefully before you decide to show your prissy elitist underclothing to the public this week when you present a bill without a public option. Ms. Senator Feinstein please phone home ET wants to explain to you how government can serve all the people not just the rich and pretty. And Senator Grassley go back to your no frills pragmatic working people in your state and explain to them again just why health care reform is not in their interest. Pragmatic, sensible, and a chess player. This President is a professional and he has integrity.

And he lies in wait for his prey to come to him. Less work, more fulfilling, albeit a bit nerve wracking to watch.

Cut the politics and get the job done. And don't create a second class citizenry when you do it.

In my last position, management, I boycotted the Board approved health care plan because it was essentially worthless unless you made the kind of money management tends to make. The janitor, the office staff, and others could not afford the plan. All the Board members were quite wealthy individuals and had little relationship to the living struggles of the employees trying to make ends meet on ten dollars an hour. They had little sympathy as well.

Today, self-employed and freelancing, without health care insurance I went to see my new physician in Fort Collins. $120 dollars for the office visit. $145 dollars for a simple routine blood test. Another $75 for a return visit on Friday. That is $340 spent in less than two weeks. Cash.

For me the worst part of the visit was the stigma I felt when I told the office I'd be paying in cash. "Don't you want the clinic down the street where you will have to wait three months for an appointment, sit with a lot of sick people needing immediate care, see a physician overworked, overstressed, and mildly pissed off you are just coming in for a blood pressure check, and can we dust the chair for fleas after you leave? You are poor aren't you? Why else would you be paying cash? Maybe you should just pay us now and then we'll give you service."

Um, no, thank you anyhow. I'd like to see a private care physician, thanks for your concern. Are you Republican? And just how many years of your life have you given to public service? Nice fingernails by the way. Do they match your pedicure? Is your 401k invested in AIG?

If a person is making a wage of $7.75 an hour $340 is around 30% of their monthly income without taxes. And that would be for routine services. While I certainly would be on board for a single payer system, and yes I trust my government to keep me alive longer than any of my Republican friends would ever opt to--at their own expense, I was content for now to hear President Obama reinforce the idea that the bill that passes his pen will need to have a public option alternative for those who don't fit into the other boxed plans.

I will trust, when the time comes, that the Republicans will not take that opportunity to create a second class service for the low-life Americans who would need such an option. Such as many of the self-employed and underemployed and between employment Americans will find as they will still be trying to regain a foothold in the "jobless" recovery. It isn't just the inhuman trolls who live under the bridge after Reagan threw them out of the mental institutions that will be using this option.

Indeed if big insurance T-rexahealthosauruses don't cure their huge appetites for profit even more may be using this option.

Oh my God. Next thing you know the unwashed masses may start demanding an legit education system to! Worse, President Obama is at the helm. He may actually listen to their needs! What now? Maybe the right wing nut jobs are right their America is over--the feudal system, the elites so diligently nurture, is truly going down the toilet.

Please, allow me, in all my cynical ranting... to push the handle for a good flush.

_______________________________

President Obama's Speech on Healthcare from the New York Times
The Gallup Website where you get real poll figures from the morning after rather than Fox Math