Holt Think: Ed, Creativity, Tech, Administration

Commissioner Williams announces 2013 accountability system

AUSTIN – Commissioner of Education Michael L. Williams today announced the four components that will be part of the new 2013 state accountability system for school districts, campuses and charters in Texas. The first ratings under this system will be issued by the Texas Education Agency on August 8, 2013.

“I have heard the criticism of the previous accountability system, with its overemphasis on a school’s lowest performing areas and its blind spot to what a district or charter might be doing well,” said Commissioner Williams. “The new system makes use of multiple indicators to provide parents and taxpayers a more detailed overview of the successes, as well as areas of necessary improvement, for each school district, charter and campus.”

The revised system will still use student assessments, but also makes use of additional indicators to provide parents and taxpayers greater detail on the performance of a district or charter and each individual campus throughout the state. The 2013 accountability system will use a performance index framework that considers four areas (including student groups that are part of that index):

• Student Achievement – Represents a snapshot of performance across all subjects, on both general and alternative assessments, at an established performance standard. (All Students)
• Student Progress – Provides an opportunity for diverse campuses to show improvements made independent of overall achievement levels. Growth is evaluated by subject and student group. (All Students; Student Groups by Race/Ethnicity; English Language Learners; Special Education)
• Closing Performance Gaps – Emphasizes advanced academic achievement of the economically disadvantaged student group and the lowest performing race/ethnicity student groups at each campus or district. (All Students; Student Groups by Race/Ethnicity)
• Postsecondary Readiness – Includes measures of high school completion, and beginning in 2014, State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR®) performance at the postsecondary readiness standard. This measure emphasizes the importance of students receiving high school diplomas that provide the foundation necessary for success in college, the workforce, job training programs or the military. (All Students; Student Groups by Race/Ethnicity; English Language Learners; Special Education)

District and campuses with students in Grade 9 or above must meet targets on all four indexes. Districts and campuses with students in Grade 8 or lower must meet targets on the first three indexes (excluding Postsecondary Readiness).

Districts, campuses and charters will receive one of three ratings:

• Met Standard – Met accountability targets on all indexes for which they have performance data in 2013
• Met Alternative Standard – Met modified performance index targets for alternative education campuses or districts
• Improvement Required – Did not meet one or more performance index targets

For eligible campuses that achieve the rating of Met Standard, distinction designations in the following areas will also be assigned for outstanding academic achievement in reading/English language arts and mathematics: 

• Top 25 Percent Student Progress
• Academic Achievement in Reading/English language arts
• Academic Achievement in Mathematics

These distinction designations will be based on campus performance in relation to a comparison group of campuses.

“It’s important to note that while the new system bases accountability on a index framework, the state will emphasize the importance of closing achievement gaps and addressing the needs of all students in Texas,” said Commissioner Williams. “Those districts and campuses that are leaders in improving achievement for all its students will be easily identified under this system.”

Because all aspects of the performance index framework cannot be fully implemented at this time, 2013 will be considered a transition year. Accountability advisory groups will reconvene later this year to finalize recommendations for accountability ratings criteria for 2014 and beyond.

In addition, work will continue on the conversion of this new system into an A-F rating system for 2014.

Williams acknowledged various aspects of the state accountability system are currently being discussed by the Texas Legislature. Any changes in bills passed during the legislative session can and will be incorporated into the system.

For a detailed overview of all components of the 2013 state accountability system, visit the Texas Education Agency website athttp://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2013/index.html.

Five Questions/Five Answers EPISD School Board Candidates

Whenever there is a local school board election in my district, I try to get as many of the candidates to respond some questions as possible. Here are the answers to the Five Question / Five Answers. I contacted ALL the candidates running, these were the ones that responded:

Rocio Benedicto District 1 (incumbent)

Susie Byrd, District 3

Robert Geske District 1

James Lamonica District 5

Charles (Chuck) Taylor District 5

Former EPISD CFO Ken Parker’s Letter to Board

First and foremost, I believe that any and all EPISD personnel involved in the cheating scheme within the District should be punished to the fullest extend possible under any laws (state and/or federal), as well as lose any state certifications granted by the state of Texas. A real travesty to this cheating scandal is that Dr. Lorenzo Garcia received only a 3 ½ year prison sentence for his part in depriving students the opportunity for a education. That said, I question the process that EPISD has used and is currently using to handle personnel issues within the District.

My concerns began in late September, 2012, when then Interim Superintendent Kenneth George disclosed to me in his office that TEA monitor, Judy Castleberry, had a list of fourteen EPISD administrators who TEA wanted terminated. Mr. George asked Dr. Castleberry to give to him in writing the bases for these TEA requested terminations. Dr. Castleberry refused to honor this request. Mr. George shared his conversation with Dr. Castleberry with at least three other EPISD Central Administrators. Through reliable sources, Dr. Terri Jordan is the only name I have been able to confirm as being on Dr. Castleberry’s termination list. Within a few days of his conversation with me, Mr. George was replaced by Vernon Butler.

About this same time, Dr. Castleberry began to really push me to have the purchasing department complete the request for qualifications (RFQ) for the forensic review and consultation services. This document had to be developed from scratch since no district had ever been required by TEA to have such a service performed. When a draft was complete, Dr. Castleberry took/sent a copy to TEA for review. After 10 days at TEA, the draft was returned to me with a few minor changes. I was directed by Dr. Castleberry to post the RFQ and get a response back as soon as possible. I told her that to receive a good response, we should give potential respondents at least 30 days due to the complexity of the engagement. After checking with TEA, Dr. Castleberry said TEA wanted it done as fast as possible to comply with state law. I told her that it had to be posted in the local paper at least twice (once in two consecutive weeks). In other words, it would take two weeks. 

I strongly protested this quick posting as I had wanted to post to other possible websites such as The Texas Association of School Business Officials (TASBO) or Texas Society of Certified Public Accountants (TSCPA) to receive a number of qualified responses. Dr. Castleberry and/or TEA refused the additional time request. It was almost like they knew whom they wanted to do the forensic audit before it was ever posted in the newspaper.

As the result of this short ten-day turn around, the District received only one proposal from one firm, Weaver. During contract negotiations, I insisted that Weaver insert the term “independent” forensic review and consultation services. I demanded that this term be used in the Weaver engagement letter for the following three reasons:
1. The El Paso public and taxpayers should be assured the highest standards of professionalism were exercised during this forensic audit to assure value for all interested parties.
2. Concern that TEA had already given Dr. Castleberry a list of 14 EPISD administrators they wanted to be terminated.
3. Concern that one of Weaver’s co-engagement leaders was Adam Jones who left TEA an estimated six months prior to this engagement. I questioned Adams Jones directly if he could be independent as related to this engagement with EPISD. He assured me he could be….and would be….independent.

In the accounting profession, “independence” is a very important professional standard. It is defined as follows:
1. Independence in mind – The state of mind that permits the performance of an attest service without being affected by influence that compromises professional judgment, thereby allowing an individual to act with integrity and exercise objectivity and professional skepticism.
2. Independence in appearance – The avoidance of circumstances that would cause a reasonable and informed third party having knowledge of all relevant information, including safeguards applied, to reasonably conclude that the integrity , objectivity or professional skepticism of a firm or member of the attest engagement team had been compromised.

Threats to independence are circumstances that could impair independence. One such threat is called “undue influence” which is defined as attempts by an attest client’s management or other interested parties to coerce the members. I believe that TEA and Dr Castleberry are “interested parties” who influenced the outcome of the forensic audit by Weaver.

(Note: “Independence” as a professional standard relates to attest engagements which include financial statement audits, reviews and other attest services as defined in the Statement or Standards for Attesting Engagement. EPISD external counsel assured me that by using the term “independent” in Weaver’s engagement letter (contract), dated October 22, 2012, that Weaver would be required to exercise independence in the performance of the forensic audit based on contract law.)

One of the reasons Weaver did not exercise professional independence during the forensic audit is that neither of the co-engagement leaders, Adam Jones or Bill Brown, are certified public accountants and would not be knowledgeable or have understanding of the significance of the professional standard of independence.

It should also be noted that the engagement letter/contract is between EPISD and Weaver. Dr. Castleberry (a contractor with TEA) or TEA are not parties to the contract. As such, communications and audit findings should have flowed directly to EPISD management…

(Mr. Butler) and/or the Board of Trustees. What I witnessed was Dr. Castleberry and Weaver’s co-engagement leaders, Mr. Adams and Mr. Brown, spending many hours behind closed doors before Weaver’s audit team arrived to begin the field work and interviews. The question is: “What were they discussing before the forensic audit began?” 

The question of due process
Through my own observations and conversations with other EPISD administrators, the process currently being used to discipline EPISD employees is as follows:
1. Weaver provides forensic audit findings to TEA official(s).
2. TEA official(s) contact Dr. Castleberry as to who is to be terminated.
3. Dr. Castleberry notifies EPISD interim superintendent, Vernon Butler, as to who and when the terminations will take place. 
4. Mr. Butler then notifies EPISD’s Human Resources Department and directs them to notify the effected employees with a vaguely worded letter basically stating to resign or face termination. No specific notice or documentation is provided as required under DFBB (LOCAL) or DFCA (LEGAL).
5. Mr. Butler then notifies the Board of Trustees of the impending personnel actions directed by Dr. Castleberry.
6. The Board of Trustees then meet behind closed doors in executive session to discuss with Mr. Butler, usually Dr. Castleberry and the District’s attorneys the requested employee action. In an effort to assure their positions on the Board, it appears the Board of Trustees will do whatever is necessary to appease Dr. Castleberry and TEA, including terminating employees without due process or “good cause” {see DFCA(LOCAL)}. In policy, the Board of Trustees should act as an impartial “judge” of the facts…weighing the recommendations of the superintendent and his documentation as well as hearing the appeal of the employee(s). Currently, employees are resigning as they understand the unfairness of the process currently being used.
7. If the employee has the financial resources to hire an attorney, they can appeal the decision back to the TEA hearing officers. This is the same TEA who initiated the termination process in the first place.

Board Policy DFBB(LOCAL) lists in great detail the reasons and procedures to be used for term contracts non-renewal. Listed below are some of the highlights of this policy:

Administration’s recommendations for renewal or non-renewal of professional employee contracts shall be submitted to the Superintendent. A recommendation for proposed non-renewal shall be supported by any relevant documentation. The final decision on the administration’s recommendation to the Board on each employee’s contract rests with the Superintendent.

The Superintendent shall prepare lists of employees whose contracts are recommended for renewal or proposed non-renewal by the Board. Supporting documentation, if any, and reasons for recommendations shall be submitted for each employee recommended for proposed non-renewal. The Board shall consider such information to the extent relevant in support of recommendation for proposed non-renewal and shall act on all recommendations. (Page 3 of 7)

The rest of the policy details very specific notices and hearing procedures required for the benefit of the employee.

Board Policy DFLA(LEGAL):

Continuing Contracts’ Suspension/Termination on page 1 of 2 under Notice states: “Before any employee under a continuing contract is discharged, suspended without pay in lieu of discharge, or released because of necessary reduction in personnel, the employee shall be notified in writing by the Board of the proposed action and the grounds for the actions. Education Code 21.158(a)”

Notice that by policy the Superintendent and Board of Trustees are in control of the personnel process…not TEA.

I believe that it is time for parents, taxpayers, students and even employees stand up to the tyranny being place upon the District by TEA.

Five Questions/Five Answers: Charles Taylor EPISD District 5

Charles “Chuck” Taylor is running for the EPISD District 5. Here are his answers to the Five Questions/Five Answers Challenge: (Answers are in italics) 

Thank you for taking the time to participate in the Five Questions Five Answers for the education blog holtthink.tumblr.com. These questions are designed to give my readers an overview of your thinking, qualifications, and vision for the  school district you are seeking office for.

Before we get to the questions, please tell us a little about your background.

Contact Information: Charles Taylor:  chucktaylor3964@sbcglobal.net

Education: MA – Health Services Management, Webster; Certification Education Mid-Management PK – 12, TEA/UTEP; BS – Education, Generic Special Education and Sociology, UTEP; BS – Criminal Justice, UTEP; AAS – Law Enforcement, EPCC; Diploma – Missile Electronic and Materiel Maintenance, U.S. Army Air Defense School; Certification – Massage Therapy, Austin School of Massage Therapy.

Occupation: Retired

Connection to the District: No connection

Question #1: 

Tell us a little about what you see as the three major issues concerning your school district and what you could do as a school board member to address those issues.

1. Lax in the area of Transparency; i.e., not being honest and straightforward or openly truthful about District  matters/operations to their constituency…
2.  Lax in the area of Quality Assurance/Standards & Compliance; i.e., an era of perceived attitudes and factors point to District managers not being careful or watchful enough; or uninterested in the dictates of governing directives…
3. Lax in the area of Fiscal responsibility and Fiduciary guardianship; i.e., there is clear evidence that the Board allowed too much latitude to the managing staff of the District and ; also, allowed for large expenditures without scrutiny.

As a Board member, I would strongly advocate for policy and procedure to assure an audit process that would provide the Board with clear information; this would be at  scheduled times in order to overcome problems in these areas of concern.  I would also extend this concept of operations into all department/operational functions of the District. 

Question #2:

Currently in the Texas Legislative session there are two major legislative movements: Parental Vouchers/ Charter Schools and standardized testing reform. What are your positions on these legislative issues? Do you support allowing more charter schools? Do you support allowing parents to pick any school for their children to attend? Thoughts on high stakes standardized testing? 

 I am ambivalent on all of these issues…  With vouchers – come the same old claim that they set-up problems for various groups of people…  The ‘well-to-do’ vs. ‘not well-to do…’ The picking and the choosing of schools; the socialization issues; continuing the divide of culture(s); you name it…

With Charter Schools — My knowledge in this area is that few are producing well; they are successful; but, many media reports claim the level of functioning of most is mediocre – just squeezing by accreditation standards…  There have been some claims that say, to-the-effect, they ‘just push them through’ — it’s the order of business  Bottom line to me is that the report card is not in:  1) good schools – good money; students with good socioeconomic backgrounds; etc… 2) poor school – little money; students with poor socioeconomic backgrounds, etc.  Same/similar issues as with vouchers… I believe allowing more Charter Schools at this time should be put on hold to afford more investigation as to there effectiveness.

I do not support parents picking any public school for their children to attend.

Standardized Testing – I do not support these test…  I believe they stifle the learning/training process… I believe the system of testing hinders the development of thinking; i.e., to fully exercise the mind (as stated clearly in the dictionary – [the] forming [of] opinions, drawing inferences, using judgment, [forming] attitude(s), to conceive, etc.).  I believe these test, as currently administered, have been an unintended vehicle to ‘dumb—down’ much of America’s student population.

Sounds like I am against all; but, I am not; I’m ambivalent because I believe these issues have good  ideas and, perhaps, workable across-the-board, solutions can be developed that yield good results if properly implemented.

Question #3: 

As a school board member, your only employees are the Superintendent and the Internal Auditor.) First of all, what type of leader do you think EPISD needs at this time? What type of management do you feel is appropriate for your employee? How do you see yourself overseeing your employee? What role will you take other than simply providing an occasional evaluation of your employee?

A leader who is trustworthy and has an established track record for being results orientated; promoting a pleasant work environment for all employees; has no problems with inquiry from the public or public officials; has a documented ‘student first’ record; manages in a transparent manner; and, has a documented history of being good at fiscal responsibility and strong in the area of fiduciary guardianship.  

Type of management style:  Superintendent — Strong in the areas of enforcement of: standards for accreditation; staff development; quality assurance/compliance; continued curriculum development; cognizant of the requirements for proper management/maintenance of the physical plant(s); and, a good steward for employees.

Type of management style:  Internal Auditor – Strong on transparency; frank, open and candid; free from bias, impartial, and fair; honest, openly truthful, and straightforward; and, cognizant of all functions to be periodically reviewed by the Board of Trustees.

Obviously, many of the general duties of these employees (though not stated under the specific heading apply — interchangeable.

Overseeing these employees:  I would assure that each position description is clear as to the requirements and expectations for the job; have an on-going evaluation process which provides immediate feedback (and immediate corrective action on noted shortcomings) on performance.  I would require a paper trail be established for all important decisions affecting the District.  I will promote a management concept with a daily tone that compliance to mandated policy and procedure, rules and standards, etc., shall always prevail in the workplace.

My employee evaluations will not be occasional, they will be on-going in order to provide continuous feedback about system(s) operation(s).  Evaluations will not be in the form of ‘micro-management;’ but, will be as needed.  Of course, mandated formal evaluation will be conducted as scheduled.

Question #4: 

We hear the term “Good steward of the public’s funds” in reference to using taxpayer’s money wisely. What qualifies you to be a “good steward” of the budget in your school district?

I have properly managed and maintained ‘other peoples’ funds since the half-way mark of my more than 20-year military career.  Starting with the coffee fund then progressing to:  Unit Fund(s) x4; KP Fund (Germany); Unit Club Fund (included all pay recreation equipment such as slots, pool tables, etc.) [Germany]; Postal Funds; and, Babies Home Funds (Korea) – at no time was I cited for a discrepancy.

After military service I’ve been the Treasurer for several civic and/or social organizations – to name a few: Lions Club, Southwest Desert Chapter NAIC (umbrella for area Investment Clubs); and, NEDPA (political association) – I still serve NEDPA – here again, no discrepancies.

When serving as Director of the State’s Forensic Psychiatric Unit, I developed the multimillion dollar operating budget; defended it three (3) times with the Texas Legislative Budget Board (LBB) over a five (5) year tenure; and implemented the approved provisions – I was never cited for irregularities.

I believe my history of handling ‘others peoples’ money is indicative of a wise and consistent management style – such qualifies me as a “good steward of the public’s funds” and a good choice for the district.

Question #5: 

As a blog about education technology, I couldn’t go without at least having one questions about that topic. How would you address the concern of many in our area of a digital divide where some students have an advantage of having digital devices and internet connection at home, and others do not? Do you think this gives some students a distinct advantage over others?  What are your feelings on “Bring Your Own Technology” initiatives, where students and employees are allowed to bring their own devices like iPads or iPhones for use in classes?

There is certainly a digital divide where some students have an advantage over others by having the internet available at home and all, or most, of the devices for learning via ‘the tech’ route. Now, if teachers require the tech route for learning and/or the curriculum is developed with emphasis on the tech route, an uneven learning environment is created and many students do not benefit.  I believe this should not be; the environment needs to be even for all students; therefore, any tech used should be ‘in school’ by the school…  I do not support “Bring Your Own Technology” for students and employees.

Thanks for your time. 

I look forward to your answers and posting them online.

Five Questions, Five Answers: Rocio Benedicto EPISD District 1

Rocio Benedicto is running for reelection in the  EPISD Board of Trustees District 1 election. 

You may contact her at: rocio.benedicto@gmail.com

Thank you for taking the time to participate in the Five Questions Five Answers for the education blog holtthink.tumblr.com. These questions are designed to give my readers an overview of your thinking, qualifications, and vision for the  school district you are seeking office for.

Before we get to the questions, please tell us a little about your background:

Education:
UTEP – B.A. – Political Science/Creative Writing
NMSU – Master’s – Educational Development of Learning Technologies
NMSU – Doctoral Candidate – Curriculum & Instruction - Dissertation Title – Aquí Contamos – A Portrait of the Pedadogy of Six Teachers with Their English Language Learners.

Occupation:

Mathematics Education Specialist – New Mexico State University

Connection to the District you are seeking office in:
My children do attend and have attended schools in District 1 and I live in EPISD District 1. As a parent of children who have attended the EPISD schools in District 1 since 2002, I have been deeply engaged with their success and progress in those schools as both a parent and a community member.

Question #1:

Tell us a little about what you see as the three major issues concerning your school district and what you could do as a school board member to address those issues.

One of the major issues, as I see it, is the need to make sure that services and programs are equitably distributed throughout the district. A first example of this is the existence of dual language programs in elementary schools almost solely on the west side of the district. Neither demographics nor parental desires account for the lack of dual language programming in other communities in the EPISD. Another example of inequitable distribution of programs is the service offered to gifted and talented students. In less affluent areas of the district gifted and talented students receive a pull out service for between 45 minutes to an hour everyday or every other day, while students in more affluent areas of the district are offered an all day program. There are more examples of this inequity in programming that have existed without a reasonable explanation but that truly alarm me. I will continue to work with the superintendent to bring to light the inequities and find the necessary resources to provide the same quality of services and programs for all of our children in the EPISD.

A second and no less important issue is the minimal level of parental involvement in our schools. I believe that there is a disconnect between the schools and the communities that they serve. I know, from being present at many school events, that parents want to be a part of the education of their children but many find it daunting and confusing. Traditionally, in the U.S. parent involvement has been through the schools’ PTA. In communities in which there are many economically disadvantaged students, the school PTA does not thrive. Sometimes they don’t thrive because there is not sufficient funding, sometimes it’s because the meeting rules of order that are part of the PTA are so foreign and formal that parents feel alienated. We know that parental involvement in a child’s education is very important. It is sometimes the difference between success and failure in their academic development. We also know that schools with strong parental support are successful overall in academics. I believe that schools with minimal or no parental involvement are more vulnerable to abuse from both external and internal entities. I, also believe that with the appropriate sorts of outreach to parents along with a rethinking of how we ask them to participate at schools, i.e., coffee with the principal vs. PTA membership, more parents will be involved in their child’s education at the elementary, middle and high school levels.

The third issue that I find to be of utmost importance is the issue of transparency. Long before the call for transparency was voiced in the public, I along with the other board members had approved that the agenda for school board meetings be posted with all supporting documents 72 hours before the meeting. Live streaming of every board meeting was also approved in order to encourage more public participation. It might have worked. There are definitely more people attending the board meetings as well as viewing the meetings online. It is also important to note that the board requested that the meeting notes are posted within 72 hours of the close of the meeting. Fiscal transparency is also essential to me, so I voted for the complete transparency of the EPISD finances. They are posted and available for review on the EPISD website. It is important that we continue to be completely transparent in our decision making, in our fiscal responsibility and in our challenges as we all move together towards a respectful future in which our children continue to receive the education that they need to be successful participants in their world. I will continue to make decisions that promotes transparency, not just now but as a permanent structure in the EPISD.

Question #2:

Currently in the Texas Legislative session there are two major legislative movements: Parental Vouchers/ Charter Schools and standardized testing reform. What are your positions on these legislative issues? Do you support allowing more charter schools? Do you support allowing parents to pick any school for their children to attend? Thoughts on high stakes standardized testing?

I hold very specific views on charter schools and school vouchers and have fought hard for them in places where I think that they make sense. I believe that charter schools are interesting to have, not as an option to the public schools but as a part of the work of the public schools. Charter schools are and have always been seen as an opportunity to innovate education. They are essentially an opportunity for someone who has a great idea about how to “do” education differently to do it. Oftentimes, because of the experimental nature of the school, parents who decide to send their children to these charters do so because they are willing to innovate with their children’s education. Not every parent is willing to do so and with good reason. There are many good charter schools and many unsuccessful charter schools. In El Paso, we have a number of them including in District 1 on 7th and Ochoa, La Fe preparatory which has been successful in working with children, mostly from the south side of El Paso, in a dual language environment with a math and science focus. There were no dual language programs on the south side until La Fe opened its doors. With the exception of Mesita elementary, in the EPISD dual language programs have been concentrated on the west side of El Paso. La Fe’s administration saw an opportunity and took it. I am so glad that they did take this chance on innovation because it worked and gives me the data that I need to be able to prove to others that dual language programs on the south side of El Paso would be well received and could be very successful. Their experiment allows me to show and push for equitable programs based on data and proof and not just on sentiment. Other charter schools that have been successful have served the same sort of purpose. By bringing in innovative programs or processes these charters offer districts and communities different ways to think about education. But, I want to be very clear here, charter schools are not meant as an instead of to OUR public schools. Public schools are publicly owned and they are the only way that a democracy can continue to build the citizenry that is responsible for democracy’s continuation. Charter schools are privately owned and although many seem to have altruistic reasons for existing, at the end of the day they are owned by an individual or a group of individuals which may or may not be a part of the community, city or state in which the school is operating. An example of this are the Edison schools that come out of the Chicago charter system. Some of the Edison schools have been successful and others have not succeeded at all. When they are not successful, the parent organization of the Edison Charter schools, closes the schools without input from the community that it is serving. This leaves the community without a charter school to attend and possibly, because the local public school lost so many students to the charter, without a public school for the children to return to. Charter schools have a purpose but it is not to replace the public schools that belong to all of us.

My position on the parent vouchers is more complex. I strongly believe that everybody has a right to educate their children in the manner that they see fit. My own experiences reflect this. When I came back to the United States, my son was in 3rd grade and he struggled for a while in school. After spending a year in the public school classroom, I realized that he was not thriving and that he needed a different type of environment, something a bit more individualized and shaped around his needs as a learner. I placed him in a private school, which was a bit expensive but I felt necessary. On a single mother’s salary and with three other children in school, I made the necessary sacrifices so that my son could be as successful as he wanted to be. When it was time for him to go back to public school he did. I never regretted the expense of placing him in private school and neither did I resent the fact that I was paying for our public schools with my taxes and for his private school with my take home pay. I was and remain grateful to have had the option of schools to send him to but never thought in any way that I should have less financial responsibility to our public schools. I don’t think giving vouchers to take kids out of our public schools is a good decision for the public in general or for our democracy. I will continue to support parents individual decisions to remove their children from our public schools but will not support the transference of money from our public schools for a private education.

Although I strongly believe that we must have a measurable and collaboratively developed method through which to determine the academic progress that our children have made during a school year, I strongly believe that standardized tests have been detrimental to both students and teachers. This past September, I stood with the members of 1000 school boards in Texas to request that our state legislators stand with the school boards and replace standardized testing with more humane systems of determining how well students are doing in their academic progress.

Question #3:
As a school board member, your only employees are the Superintendent and the Internal Auditor.) First of all, what type of leader do you think
EPISD needs at this time? What type of management do you feel is appropriate for your employee? How do you see yourself overseeing your employee? What role will you take other than simply providing an occasional evaluation of your employee?

The leadership that the EPISD needs is not just needed at this time but at all times. We need leadership that has the vision and the necessary education to lead the district both instructionally and organizationally. This leader also has a deep sense of what is fair and what is just. I work with many superintendents in many districts and have found that the best superintendents make decisions at once considering both its effect on the district as a whole as well as the classroom. Superintendents who are good organizational managers have very well developed listening skills that allow them to hear the needs of the community, the parents, faculty, staff and students and effectively make decisions that takes those needs into account. Understanding the importance of community involvement and engagement in the success of a school district is a very important quality for our next superintendent. He or she will need to know how to communicate with the EPISD community about policies, instructional changes or other important issues in the district. The oversight of the superintendent is not a occasional task. An effective relationship between the superintendent and the school board that supervises her or him is necessary and requires a mutually respectful and open dialogue. I also believe that it is part of the the job of the board member to provide feedback to the superintendent about how the community is assessing the health of the district. Vigilance is necessary and cannot be underestimated in a job like this. Too much is at stake to think that a board member only needs to read the meeting material, show up to school board meetings and vote.

Question #4:

We hear the term “Good steward of the public’s funds” in reference to using taxpayer’s money wisely. What qualifies you to be a “good steward” of the budget in your school district?

Good stewardship of public funds is a learned behavior which I am still learning to do. I read all of the fiscal reports that come before the board and try and understand as much as I can about the manner in which the monies are gathered and how they are spent, in order to ensure that each contract signed and each product purchased has, at its core, the good education of the students of this district. It is a new position for me, to be in charge of such big and sometimes overwhelming decisions and I am grateful that I can depend on the award winning staff that is in the EPISD budget department to help me make decisions. They are always available to answer questions and are extremely knowledgeable about all fiscal matters concerning the district budget. Although I am new to the management of a district budget, as part of the responsibilities that I have had over the last 12 years at New Mexico State University, I have been responsible for multi- million dollar federally and privately funded grants. I am also the founder and Executive Director of Fronteras Education, Inc. an education non-profit that receives substantial funding from both federal and private organizations. I believe that the experience that I have as a fiscal monitor and person responsible for the budgets that I manage and have managed allows me to understand the complexity of being a good steward of the public funds and of the public trust.

Question #5:

As a blog about education technology, I couldn1t go without at least having one questions about that topic. How would you address the concern of many in our area of a digital divide where some students have an advantage of having digital devices and internet connection at home, and others do not? Do you think this gives some students a distinct advantage over others? What are your feelings on 3Bring Your Own Technology2 initiatives, where students and employees are allowed to bring their own devices like iPads or iPhones for use in classes?

I have been thinking about the digital divide for a very long time. My master’s degree is in technology, specifically in the way that technology can and should be be used in the K-12 classroom. I am concerned with the fact that there are students who do not have consistent or dependable access to computers, cell phones or other types of technology which short changes their academic preparation because so much in the Information Age depends on access to the internet, to electronic mail and to social networking sites. Without dependable access to a computer or to an internet connection outside of schools, students fall behind their peers in their experience with accessing information needed for school projects. Access limited students are less confident in being able to do research on the internet or create presentations to share with peers and teachers. Children who have access to technology outside of school have a greater sense of confidence in their ability to complete school projects successfully. Teachers whose students are experienced with technology report that their students are more engaged in the classroom material and also that the level of their academic production is higher. Access to technology outside of the school environment is not something that the EPISD has control over and so, in the EPISD we face an issue that is greater than one that we can solve alone. What we can do and what we should continue to do is what is being done already, which is to make sure that those schools that are in the most economically underserved parts of the districts get the technology equipment and support that is needed to bridge the gap. An example of this exists at Guillen Middle School, where teachers and administrators are dedicated to preparing their students to be competitive in the 21st century economy by providing them with an excellent science and math education and teachers who know how to integrate technology into their classroom instruction in meaningful ways. It is because of this that Guillen Middle School students have placed first or second over the last 4 years in the city-wide Robotics competition. Along with providing access to good technology equipment and software, ensuring that teachers are well prepared to teach with technology is essential. This is especially important for teachers who are instructing in classrooms where students lack of access to technology places them at a disadvantage in their schoolwork. Teachers need to be encouraged and supported in developing new ways to work with the students of the Information Age.

As for bringing your own technology to school, I am a supporter. I know that there will always be issues of misuse or abuse. I do feel that these issues will become less as we begin to formalize the manner in which personal technologies can and should be used for learning. I know that I am extremely attached to all of my technologies (cell phone, iPad and computer) and find that I am much more productive because I know how to use them and because I don’t have to worry about what computer my files are on. It appears that such an initiative would also be a cost saving for the district which is a welcomed thought, especially in this time of added budget stress due the Sequester’s effects on our budget bottom line.

Thank you for your time.

Five Questions, Five Answers: Robert Geske District 1 EPISD

Robert (Bob) Geske is a longtime educator in El Paso and is running for the District 1 position on the EPISD Board of trustees. 

Here are Mr. Geske’s Five Answers to the Five Questions: 

——————————————————————

Thank you for taking the time to participate in the Five Questions Five Answers for the education blog holtthink.tumblr.com. These questions are designed to give my readers an overview of your thinking, qualifications, and vision for the  school district you are seeking office for.

I will post your responses verbatim, without editorial comment. I will also post your contact information, web site and email so readers might contact you. 

Before we get to the questions, please tell us a little about your background:

Contact Information:  Bob Geske: jbgeske@aol.com

Education:

My father was in the U.S. Army, and as near as I can recall, I went to more than a dozen schools!!

Charles H. Milby High School (Houston, TX), 1964

UTEP  Fall 1970 – B.S. Education

UTEP  1977 – M.Ed Physical Education

Occupation:

Retired Secondary English Teacher. 

Connection to the District you are seeking office in:

I have lived in the EPISD District One for thirty-six years and taught in the same district for twenty-two years.  My three children were educated in this district, and  my wife  taught in this district.

Question #1: 

Tell us a little about what you see as the three major issues concerning your school district and what you could do as a school board member to address those issues.

There is only one major issue, in my opinion, for the EPISD – restoring credibility and confidence. Without public support, there can be no progress. Progress costs money, and without voter support there will be no additional money; hence, no progress. Long-term goals such as new schools, more technology, more teachers, smaller class size, better transportation, stronger teacher preparation, etc. will not be attainable without constituent backing.

Question #2:

Currently in the Texas Legislative session there are two major legislative movements: Parental Vouchers/ Charter Schools and standardized testing reform. What are your positions on these legislative issues? Do you support allowing more charter schools? Do you support allowing parents to pick any school for their children to attend? Thoughts on high stakes standardized testing? 

I am a strong proponent of spending public money on public schools.  It has not been proven to me that charter schools/ parental voucher programs provide a better education and offer more opportunities than public schools.  Within a school district, I believe that any student should be allowed to attend any school he/she chooses to attend, as long as the parents provide transportation and support.  Standardized testing is an enigma.  There has to be an evaluation process, but the testing program now in place is intrinsically flawed because of economic and cultural biases.  If a system that eliminates the biases and also measures student progress can be devised, I will support such an entity.

Question #3: 

As a school board member, your only employees are the Superintendent and the Internal Auditor.) First of all, what type of leader do you think EPISD needs at this time? What type of management do you feel is appropriate for your employee? How do you see yourself overseeing your employee? What role will you take other than simply providing an occasional evaluation of your employee?

The next superintendent just might have to be superhuman because he/she must have the following: strong educational background – Ph.D or better, strong financial background, ethics and integrity beyond reproach, twenty plus years of work experience, perfect references, and the ability to leap very difficult situations.  The superintendent should receive an appropriate (compared to equal-sized school districts in Texas) salary with benefits. No state-mandated, test-result bonuses will be included. As has been demonstrated, occasional or yearly evaluations of the superintendent have not worked.  More frequent, more in-depth scrutinies are in order.  The internal auditor should be answerable only to the board and should provide the necessary information to make an appropriate evaluation of the superintendent.

Question #4: 

We hear the term “Good steward of the public’s funds” in reference to using taxpayer’s money wisely. What qualifies you to be a “good steward” of the budget in your school district?

The Board takes information from the superintendent and the department heads, discusses the merits and details of the information, and approves a budget.  This is the same process my department at UTEP used.  If budget cuts are necessary, the money would have to come from the seven to eight percent of the budget that is not entitlements.  I would ask myself the following questions: How would it benefit the students, faculty, and administration?  Can we afford it?  Is it necessary?  If any answer is no, the particulars line item would be up for elimination.  I would be a conservative steward of the public’s funds because I am part of that public.

Question #5: 

As a blog about education technology, I couldn’t go without at least having one questions about that topic. How would you address the concern of many in our area of a digital divide where some students have an advantage of having digital devices and internet connection at home, and others do not? Do you think this gives some students a distinct advantage over others?  What are your feelings on “Bring Your Own Technology” initiatives, where students and employees are allowed to bring their own devices like iPads or iPhones for use in classes?

The district needs to come up with a system that allows more access to the internet for the students who do not have opportunities for unlimited access and doesn’t cost more. More time in open, supervised, labs might be the answer, but that involves transportation, which means more money from other programs???  I suggest that people, such as Tim Holt, come up with a plan that can be implemented when I become a board member!!!  Allowing students and employees to bring their own devices to use in classes opens up the can of worms about supervision.  How will it be possible to monitor every device for content?  I think impossible.  In supervised labs, monitors have access to content and use and are able to prevent most of the corruption.

Thanks for your time.