I have believed, with plenty of evidence to support my belief, that frequent Joplin Globe guest columnist Anson Burlingame has allowed himself to be used by some of the big players in this city, particularly Mark Rohr, David Wallace, and C. J. Huff.
When I have read Anson's columns on education in general, and on my case, in particular, it is almost a parroting of what C. J. Huff has said. Anson used his column in the Globe to unsuccessfully push C. J.'s talking point that the last board election was all about me. (It was not.)
He has pushed C. J.'s condemnation of me as a pornographer who tried to entice my students into reading my work, when school officials were never able to find any student who had read No Child Left Alive. Anson Burlingame may have been the only person outside of C. J. Huff, the Joplin R-8 Administration, and the Board of Education who thought it was all right for C. J. Huff, Tina Smith, and Klista Rader to make accusations that went far beyond anything that I had been accused of. Even another frequent Joplin Globe columnist who is no supporter of mine, Geoff Caldwell, wrote that the administration went too far with its unwarranted attack.
Anson also believed I had no right to defend myself against Administration by recording Tina Smith's infamous four-minute interrogation.
With all of that being said, it hurts me to admit this, but in his latest blog entry, an assessment of last night's Joplin R-8 Board of Education meeting- Anson Burlingame is absolutely correct on every point he makes.
The Board of Education meeting was a waste of time.
It was not an opportunity for district patrons to see how the decisions are made that affect the education of Joplin's children- it was plain and simple- propaganda put on by C. J. Huff to show that all is well and good in the school district.
And the Board of Education lets him get away with it, month after month after month.
Anson describes it in this way:
The formal meeting lasted almost an hour. Not once in that entire hour did I hear anyone ask for anything from the BOE. But there sure was a parade of people speaking before the BOE to brag about how good their particular effort might be. It was simply a “feel good” set of speakers and remarks, telling the BOE about progress, a good state examination result, etc., etc. Again, not one “action item” for the BOE to consider, debate, ponder or most important to take BOE level action to resolve a problem.
I offer just one example, not just picking on one briefing to the BOE. A Construction Update for the new high school was provided, about a 10 minute list of things done and a feel good video showing steel beams being erected, etc. Now what is the KEY issue related to JHS construction, something we all want to know, private citizens, students, teachers, taxpayers and the list goes on?
Will JHS open as scheduled, fully or just partially, on time and at or below current cost projections? It is a one minute briefing if the answer to both questions is “Yes”. But if the answer is “Maybe”, or even “I’m not sure” then the briefing should get into the details to resolve that fundamental question. Bragging about “painting the new cafeteria” is a big so what, to me at least and a waste of time for a governing body to understand. A governing body needs to know what IT, the governing body must do, to achieve a goal set several years ago. If no action by that body is needed, then move on the other areas where the BOE needs to do “something”.It has been a long time since there has been a good discussion about an educational policy or a district problem in a televised Joplin R-8 Board of Education meeting. Any items where they might be any differences are purposely placed in the afternoon work session and then whichever side has the most votes wins and when the final vote is taken, all seven vote in favor of it, as if there is something sinister about having a difference of opinion.
When California Gov. Earl Warren was appointed Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court in 1953 following the death of Fred Vinson, the court was deciding the critical case of Brown v. Board of Education. Warren had the votes for integrate America's schools, but he decided to push for all nine votes, because of the importance of showing the country that the entire court was behind the decision.
No offense to C. J. Huff and his administrative team, but there are few decisions that are made by the Joplin R-8 Board of Education that absolutely have to be unanimous in order for this district to function effectively.
A case in point, the board's decision last night to approve, by a 7-0 vote, of course, a drastic change in the school calendar, which will mean all students will be in class two weeks less during the 2014-2015 school year.
During the dog-and-pony show that Anson Burlingame refers to as the "formal meeting," not one word was spoken about the calendar.
Think about that and consider what could have been discussed:
-With test scores decreasing each year, do we really want to cut out 10 days of school?
-With the high school being the only school that has not been completed, why not allow the middle schools and elementary schools to go 174 days and just the high school go 164? Since that is more than two-thirds of our students who have buildings available, does it really make sense to cut down education for everyone?
-Do 10 minutes extra at the end of each day really make a difference educationally or is that something that is being done to make this fit state regulations?
-What about the classified workers who are losing two weeks of pay because of this decision?
-Considering how poor most of the professional development has been in the school district, is there really any reason why at least some of the PD days could not be classroom days instead?
A discussion about the school calendar and the effect it may have on education next year is the kind of thing that should have happened in front of the Jet 14 audience, but it would not fit in with the self-congratulatory nature of the televised board meeting.
Some of these things were discussed in the earlier, non-televised work session. There were disagreements among board members. By the time the televised meeting rolled around, however, there were no disagreements. A school calendar that will have a negative effect on a lot of people was passed as part of the consent agenda by a 7-0 vote.
I am not trying to minimize the importance of the school calendar when I say that it was not essential that the vote be 7-0 in its favor. As important as it is, and as important as many of the items that are considered by the Board are, it was not Brown v. Board of Education.
With the addition of Lynda Banwart and Debbie Fort to the board and the ascension of Annie Sharp to the presidency, it is time that the Joplin R-8 Board of Education's televised meetings stopped being a 90-minute advertisement for whatever the Huff Administration is pushing and started being a governmental body discussing and deciding important issues.
For the past six years, everything has been about image in the Joplin R-8 School District.
It is time for substance.
***
2 comments:
There is ONE thing that Randy and I agree with, 100%. Things must change in public education in general and Joplin public education in particular.
I will hasten to add, however, that my views are just that, MY views and no one else's. I am not a mouthpiece for anyone, particularly Dr. Huff or any member of the BOE.
But I have engaged professionally and privately with various people in the R08 administration and BOE (at least those that will talk to me). I them form my own conclusions based on my own experiences in life and in school classrooms as well.
We the people are doing a disservice to this country in the manner in which we fail to teach kids what to learn and how to behave. 50% of the kids getting a diploma in May from JHS will not be able to read, write and do arithmetic to 12th grade level (as determined by R-8, not CCS, etc.) What are we going to do about that?
You sure won't hear any ideas in BOE meetings on such a topic, now will you? At least Randy and I agree on that point.
Anson Burlingame
I really do not understand the 7-0 thing. It is clear that there are board members that don't always agree with the policy, so why do they defer to the false front?
The faux solidarity makes things look more suspicious than anything, it makes it look like they're hiding things - if you seem like you're hiding something, it always looks worse than coming clean.
Post a Comment