Community Comments
March 2007 - These 2005 comments provide background to recent events relating to Board and Mary Barter's tenure.
Our goal is to keep the School District scrupulously honest. That is the standard we also strive for, so in writing to us please consider Joe Friday's, "just the facts, Ma'am." We appreciate the writers below for taking the time to express themselves. Anonymous comments are allowed on the "blog" because teachers and staff have asked for a safe way to contribute information, that otherwise is not available. Some teachers also feel the need to write cryptically, without any details that would identify them as whistleblowers.
The information provided and opinions expressed in comments sent to Durango School Talk are those of the individuals sending the comments and do not necessarily reflect the research or opinions of the editors of this website. To keep the dialogue civil and encourage thoughtful discussion, any name calling or foul language used will be edited. Comments are numbered for easy reference if you wish to respond and help start a dialogue.
NOTE: Updates to DurangoSchoolTalk are by necessity somewhat infrequent. To help readers understand comments as they are posted, whenever possible we will add links to news articles and other background material online.
Updated September 28, 2005
Comment #14
Date Received: September 13, 2005
Subject: Presentation to Board on Override - Is Board fully informed?
Sender: Vickie Gallegos
September 13, 2005
Good evening, my name is Vickie Gallegos and I am here tonight to once again ask this board:
“What are you doing to ensure the fiscal soundness of this district?”
You are the keepers of my tax dollars and of 9-R local residents, and the keepers of not only my own children's education, but the children of this community. After reviewing the June Board meeting video and reading the minutes, I am certain that no one has directly answered my questions despite assurances to the contrary at the last meeting.
During the August 16th Board meeting, the Board President informed the community that the proposed $900K deficit for the coming fiscal year's budget was conservative, and that the deficit will not in fact be that high. That would be excellent, but I thought the purpose of a preliminary budget was to try to forecast a true picture in June of the financial soundness for the coming year ---- to truly represent the future----not to exaggerate with a first proposal and then wait until after the proposed budget has been approved to say that things are really not going to be that bad.
So can you then explain more fully? – are proposed revenues being understated, or are expenses being overstated? And if the latter, what expense items are being overstated? Whether the deficit is $700K or $900K - it is still a deficit – and we have been seeing a deficit running now for three years.
Now this Board is going out to the community to ask them in November to vote for a transportation override. How will this override --- that you hope will generate revenue up to $550K --- improve transportation for our children? Have there been problems with the transportation department that 9-R needs to ask money for? According to the Office of Public Information, fuel prices are increasing a whopping 41.2% from fiscal year 2004. If that is the reason you came up with the override, then why is the fuel budget cost of $85K the same for this coming fiscal year as it was for the last fiscal year? Shouldn't it have increased the whopping 40% ---not stayed the same? I would expect these line items to be more accurately portrayed.
Getting back to the bigger picture – the reasons for persistent deficits and dipping into reserves:
The district's enrollment has been dropping for the last 5 years. I stated this well over a year ago when the issue of boundary changes occurred - yet this district has continued to optimistically forecast a minimum 1% annual growth at each individual school for the next 10 years.
According to the Office of Public Information, 9-R has lost 340 students since 2000. How many dollars of lost revenue would this add up to? In 2003, a drop of 83 students was about $141,200 in state funding. Therefore, 340 students would be about $578,410, not taking into consideration inflation or other state funding increases. Do you realize that is approximately Half a Million dollars in revenue that this district has lost? What has the lost revenue been over the last three or five years?
Yet as the Superintendent states, this overall drop in enrollment has not been enough to cut costs. This district now seems to be heading into year three of a deficit!! The general fund reserve has gone from 15.7% in 2003 to a proposed 11.2% for 2006. 9-R is spending more each year than the previous year regardless of decreases in enrollment.
According to a Herald article from October 2003, when this district started running a deficit you, the Board, stated that if enrollment did not pick up by 2004, a committee would be formed to evaluate the budget and find places to save money if things did not improve. Well, here we are in 2005 - still running a deficit, enrollment still projected to drop, and where is this committee and their evaluation to you of places they have found to save money?
At the August 16 th Board meeting, the board President stated that Mr. Seiter asked the finance director to come up with a 2-3-5 year long term strategy. According to EL-7 Budgeting - item 9 reads as follows:
“Accordingly, the superintendent may not present to the board a recommended budget which plans for the expenditure in any fiscal year of more funds than are conservatively projected to be received in that period unless otherwise approved by the board in a multi-year plan.”
Since this board has been approving preliminary deficit budgets for three years –According to EL-7 there should already be in place a multi-year plan and a multi-year strategy - and that needs to be shared with the public for review.
I would like to know what the plan is to get our district out from running a deficit as soon as possible. We are approaching a point where the general fund reserve will hit the 10% board approved level. After that there can be no dipping into reserves, as we have been doing for the past two years and are doing again this year. What is the comfortable level that this board would like to see our general fund reserve set at?
So what I am looking for from you is an explanation for taxpayers as to why you would be asking us for more money instead of first trying to find ways of cutting expenditures – in ways that do not affect education - before the general fund reserve reaches 10% -- at which point the education program will be affected. I feel the Board needs more input about how the District is managing its finances before asking the taxpayers for more money.
Thank you.
Comment # 13
Date Received: August 3, 2005
Subject: PIO Responds to Comment #10 below
"Margaret Pacheco's Letter to Herald"
Sender: 9-R Public Information Director
Editors' note: background reference:
Durango Herald: June 19, 2005
“Former DHS teacher raised safety issues. Lynch: contractors
cut corners; district says students are safe.”
To the Editor:
The recent letter to the editor “Chemical dangers in 9-R buildings” by Margaret Pacheco was so full of misrepresentations and misinformation and the headline so alarmist that it begs a response.
Point: Only one Fort Lewis Mesa staff member complained of pain and headaches shortly after moving into her new classroom. Fort Lewis Mesa Fire Chief Doug Zalesky conducted an air test in October at the district's request and found the air quality within safe parameters. The cause of the staff member's pain was found to be unrelated to construction.
Point: Although school water tests were conducted in October by a private contractor, he failed to notify the district directly. The district did not receive notice from the Colorado Department of Health about the elevated lead concentrations until February. Families were notified the very next day, as was explained to Ms. Pacheco last spring. The district followed EPA guidelines by flushing water systems daily, the most effective method of reducing lead concentrations in distribution pipes. The district provided students with access to bottled water coolers as soon as possible. While subsequent tests have shown that lead concentrations are well below EPA “action levels,” the district will take the added step of installing charcoal filters on all water fountains by the start of the school year. All staff were offered the opportunity to take blood tests to determine whether they had any lead in their systems. Only one teacher took us up on the offer, and the test results were negative.
Point: Student safety is our first priority as evidenced by the immediate response to any and all concerns raised during construction. We invite Ms. Pacheco and the Herald to visit with us in person so that we may present them with the documentation, inspection reports, and other data that demonstrate the care the district and its contractors took to protect student safety during and after construction. It's the least the Herald can do before publishing sensationalized headlines over such misinformed allegations.
Deborah Uroda
9-R Director of Public InformationComment # 12
Date Received: August 3, 2005
Subject: Recent middle school principal hirings
Sender: 9-R Public Information Director
In response to Comment No. 9 . . .The district did reveal the "reason" for the transfer of Bruce Hankins to Miller -- the initial search did not produce a viable candidate as was stated in the news release announcing the decision to appoint Mr. Hankins to the Miller principalship. Whether a top candidate dropped out of the running, turned out to be unsuitable after references were called, or ran off to join the Foreign Legion isn't the point. The fact that the initial search didn't produce a viable candidate happens more often than not with search committees. The point is that the Miller search committee suggested that Bruce Hankins be considered for the job, leaving the district with the opportunity to promote Ms. Kendziorski. You can view the news release in its entirety at: www.durango.k12.co.us/pio/news /kendziorski.htm
Deborah Uroda
Durango School District 9-R
E-mail: duroda@durango.k12.co.us
Editors' NOTE: for background on these comments read more -
"Escalante parents, teachers unhappy with recommendation"
March 9, 2005 - A crowd of around 75, including a majority of Escalante Middle School's teachers, gathered in front of the Durango School District 9-R School Board on Tuesday to voice disapproval of the district administration's recommendation for a replacement to retiring Escalante Principal Gene Giddings.
"Hankins earns principal's job at Escalante"
March 10, 2005 - In a 4-2 vote early Wednesday morning, the Durango School District 9-R Board voted to uphold the administration's recommendation for the next principal at Escalante Middle School despite complaints about the choice from numerous parents and teachers.
Comment # 11
Date Received: June 28, 2005
Subject: Preliminary Proposed Budget for 2005-06
Sender: 9-R Parent and Community Member
BACKGROUND:
See Durango Herald, June 29, 2005 “Budget of $34.2M wins initial approval”
Durango Herald, July 3, 2005 “9-R Bracing for Decreased Enrollment”
TO: 9-R Board President
FROM: Vickie Gallegos, parent and community member
DATE: June 28, 2005
Because I am unable to attend the meeting tonight I would like the Board president to read my statement before the community during the public participation portion of the Board meeting.
As a mother of two children entering 1st and 3 rd grade this fall and who has tracked financial reports in my profession, I am extremely concerned about the future financial health of this school district and this preliminary budget for 2005-06.
After briefly looking at the preliminary budget that is before you for approval tonight, I want to go on record that I have some grave concerns. And it is my hope that every member of this Board is asking how this district can, in good conscience, continue every year to spend more than what is being collected in revenue. When and how are we going to stop this over expenditure so we do not deplete our general fund reserve below the 10% level? The 2004-05 year-end financials will not be complete for at least another 4 to 6 weeks so you do not yet know the exact amount of this past year's over expenditure that will be carried forward into 2005-06 that will further deplete the general fund balance.
My biggest concern is that you, as a Board, are allowing the district's expenditures to exceed revenues by over $900,000. This is the third year in a row that expenditures have exceeded revenues, but the first year that it is well over $500,000 and closer to $1 million .
Your own Board policy states that the general fund reserve cannot fall below 10%. The budget proposed for 2005-06 will lower it to 11%. How close will you let this go before doing something? Will drastic cuts have to be made after our children are well into the 2005-06 school year or will you just change the policy to lower the required reserve percentage?
Therefore, I am asking this Board to share with the public whatever areas or budget items you will be looking at first to cut so that we start reducing the expenditures. Parents will not want cuts that downgrade their children's education. If you start looking now, maybe reductions can be made in areas that will not impact the children and their classrooms; but if you wait until October, after school has started, or beyond that, until the next fiscal year 2006-07, drastic measures will be called for. I don't think the public is going to feel well served if they find out there was a way of preventing a financial crunch from happening in the first place-especially if the Board was aware of a pattern of over expenditures in the first place, but did nothing to address it.
This Board shares the responsibility for the financial soundness of this district along with the superintendent. Some of you have laughed at me for having my calculator. I hope that you are bringing the same kind of scrutiny to the district's financials as you bring to your businesses. Would you use a calculator and truly go over the budget in your job or are you able to just assume the person doing them has everything in them and has made no mistakes? Are you not also jointly and personally responsible and liable for the budget and financials of this district in the same manner? I am well aware of how hard and diligently the finance director works in preparing the proposed budget since I was once in those shoes. But mistakes do happen, which I have caught and brought to the attention of the finance director. This Board should be going over the budget and double-checking figures just like any boss and corporate Board of Directors would. Board members should be asking hard, thoughtful questions to prepare to make some changes. You need to be as familiar as possible with all the budget categories. You need information that lets you evaluate and compare expenditures that actually impact learning versus those that do not.
This Board keeps talking about finding the community's values- here is what I value- putting our fiscal resources into excellent teachers, classroom aides, and innovative research based programs, and being very careful and prudent about every other category from administrative salaries to supplies and equipment purchases. Is this district truly spending the community's money wisely and on the areas of education? You as a Board have a fiscal responsibility to do your best in investing tax dollars for our students. Effective investment in students requires spending time up front. Time spent making the right decisions is far more effective than time spent attempting to undo bad decisions. We the taxpayers have entrusted you with the power to make wise decisions about the district's future fiscal health; we are counting on you to take the time and interest in doing so.
Thank you.
Vickie Gallegos
Durango
Comment # 10
Date Received: June 10
Subject: Chemical Dangers in 9-R Buildings
Sender: Grandparent of 9-R elementary student
Background: See Durango Herald: June 19, 2005
“Former DHS teacher raised safety issues. Lynch: contractors
cut corners; district says students are safe.”
Letter to Editor: Durango Herald from Margaret Pacheco - Published June 29
There are wonderful aspects of having new buildings or buildings with additions, however the reality of off-gassing, improperly installed or not working ventilation and heat/cooling systems should have been addressed before children and staff were exposed in the 2004-05 school year.
Point: In at least one school the ovens in the kitchen were supposed to be burned off as per manufacturer instructions, but this was not done. Staff later noted illnesses, chronic fatigue and pain, headaches among them.
Point: At Fort Lewis Mesa the staff had sick building syndromes, among these, chronic fatigue, pain, headaches. Meanwhile, old rooms stood empty where the classes could have been held in a safer environment while the new addition was off-gassed and kinks were worked out of the heating ventilation system.
Point: Lead was discovered in the drinking water at three of the elementary schools, but it was not dealt with proactively by informing parents and staff who could have chosen to use or carry safe bottled water. Not in August, but fully six months into the school year, the public was finally informed. At that time, in February of 2005, the issue was glossed over. No safe drinking water was provided; the systems were flushed before children arrived in the morning, but what did they consume as the day wore on? We don't know. That is unacceptable. Children who were exposed to the high levels of lead were ages 3 and one half years and up. Several staff were pregnant. In a pregnant woman the lead dumps into the placenta and the developing fetus is presented lead at toxic levels.
Point: Where in the above scenario does 9R give us any cause as members of the public to believe that there is love for our community, our children, the adults and newborns? When you love them you have the honor of teaching them. Where does teaching begin? I believe that actions are the greatest lessons. (What did I do as a grandparent? I wrote letters, sent e-mails to State Senator Isgar and others, and spoke to our local school authorities. What did I get in response? A letter from 9R PR spokesperson Deborah Uroda.)
Margaret Pacheco
Hesperus, CO
Comment # 9
Subject: Durango School Talk Website/Principal Selection Changes
Sender: 9-R Parent
Background: Editors' note: for background read more from Durango Herald:
"Escalante parents, teachers unhappy with recommendation"
March 9, 2005 - A crowd of around 75, including a majority of Escalante Middle School's teachers, gathered in front of the Durango School District 9-R School Board on Tuesday to voice disapproval of the district administration's recommendation for a replacement to retiring Escalante Principal Gene Giddings.
Hankins earns principal's job at Escalante March 10, 2005 - In a 4-2 vote early Wednesday morning, the Durango School District 9-R Board voted to uphold the administration's recommendation for the next principal at Escalante Middle School despite complaints about the choice from numerous parents and teachers.
To Durango School Talk Editors:
I love your site! It's nice to be able to go and read what is actually happening in our school district. I have wanted to write a letter to the editor regarding the sudden decision change the board made with the principal selection for Escalante Middle School . I could most certainly see why people in our community would think that it was a noble thing for them to do. I felt it was sad however, that the Herald's account didn't reflect the REAL reason for the change. Perhaps they didn't get the real reason from the powers that be.
It would appear that the principal candidate that Dr. Barter and the selection committee chose for Miller Middle School dropped out of the running and therefore they had to make a move, and quickly. I have no doubt that Dr. Barter and the administration viewed a reversal of their original decision as a way to redeem itself in the eyes of the community. Sad however, that they didn't share the real reason for their change in decision. We would like to believe that Dr. Barter has our community, our school district, and our children's best interest at heart, but if we do our homework, we will see that that just isn't the case.
Again, I want to thank you for the honesty that your website is displaying. Also, thank you for the opportunity to voice an opinion as to the facts and what is really taking place within our school board and our administration.
In response to recent testimony before the board, my son received a "form letter" from Board President, Cindi Brevik, and was thoroughly disgusted with it. He felt as though she had demeaned his intelligence and that she may have the misguided impression that because she is the President of the board and the letter came from her, that it would make things all better. Needless to say, he now has a very low opinion of Mrs. Brevik and has lost total and complete faith and confidence in her abilities to run our school board.
Hopefully your website will give people the initiative to do their research and learn the true facts of what is going on in our district. Things are not good, folks, regardless of what you read in the papers.
Betsy Lovelace
Hesperus, Colorado
Comment # 8
Date Received: June 14
Subject: 9-R Watchdog Group
Sender: 9-R School Board Member
I am writing to clarify an error in a statement that was made by Doug
Zalesky of the 9-R Watchdog Group during his radio broadcast on June
2nd. Mr. Zalesky quoted me as saying, "This watchdog committee is
mean-spirited." The actual statement I made was, "There are
mean-spirited people who are not constructively criticizing with
suggestions of workable solutions." I have never inferred that the
watchdog committee was mean-spirited. I have always encouraged
constructive criticism with a goal towards a positive outcome for
everyone. It does seem that I have noticed in the public participation
period of our board meetings that some individuals do not support our
teachers and principals in a positive manner.
Sincerely,
Floyd Patterson
9-R Board Member
Durango
Comment #7
Date Posted: June 12, 2005
Subject: Online dialogue, welcome!
Sender category: Former 9-R Parent
Dear School Talk:
I want to applaud you for the thoughtful and articulate website. Over the last two days, I have spent more than an hour reading the history, issues, articles, and comments. All of my children have exited the 9-R school system, so I guess I belong to that largely unidentified mass called "community."
I heartily encourage you to continue to address these topics in a public forum. The lack of engagement exhibited by the administration and board in the issues you are addressing is unconscionable at worst and short sighted at best. It is the lack of "meaningful" dialogue that is the most disturbing. The rhetoric of "involvement" is meaningless without a substantive engagement of students, parents, teachers, administration and board and community.
I hope that the energy of the individual groups, who have presented specific concerns, does not wane.
Things to consider:
1) I look forward to the "read more" about policy governance.
2) While the comments you have chosen to publish are quite comprehensive, I see some value in a variety of letters on each subject. It might encourage more people to write and become involved. I'm not suggesting you publish all of them.
3) I encourage you to publicize this website on a larger scale. This could become the one real forum that people can easily access and have a voice.
Thank you and congratulations again.
Julie Madden
Comment #6
Date Posted: June 12, 2005
Subject: High School Lockdown, Escalante Principal selection
Sender category: 9-R Parent
To School Talk:
I am writing in response to the first “e-note” that the district has distributed. I think we can all agree that practice lockdowns are necessary. The problem is the way the lockdown was conducted. I think it is unfortunate that the high school administration did not realize that that kind of situation would be anxiety provoking to students and staff. I thought it was good for Mr. Spradling to acknowledge that it was a mistake in the piece he wrote for the paper, but it would have been good for him to address the student body as well. I am sure that lockdown drills/dog searches will not be conducted in the same way in the future. I also think we need to move away from the "lockdowns are an unfortunate necessity" and just openly acknowledge when a mistake is made. Overall, I think the district needs to toot its horn when things are done well, but be just as quick to admit mistakes. I think that would actually give the community more confidence that the district is supportive and willing to move on issues.
On an unrelated issue, I congratulate Dr. Barter on her recent decision regarding the principals at Escalante and Miller. I think that shows her support for the staff at the middle schools and certainly her support for the overall community, particularly at Escalante.
Deb Heath
Parent
Durango
Editors' note: see Durango Herald March 9 and 10 for background on Escalante Principal Selection Process.
Escalante parents, teachers unhappy with recommendation
Hankins earns principal's job at Escalante
Comment #5
Date Posted: June 12, 2005
Subject: Paddy Lynch Contract
Sender category: 9-R Administrator - Public Information Office
To School Talk: From Deborah Uroda
On your front page, you have the following:
”May 24 - In closed executive session, 9-R Board upholds administrative
decision not to renew contract of metal fabrication teacher Paddy
Lynch.”
That is incorrect. The board did not vote in closed executive session.
They voted in public. They discussed the matter in executive session,
as allowed by state law, and until the vote was taken IN PUBLIC, I
don't think the board knew which way the vote would go. In the
interest of adding to a constructive dialogue, I hope you will correct
that statement. Thanks.
Deborah Uroda
Director, 9-R Public Information
Editor's Response: The editors of Durango School Talk understand the confusion about what action the board took on May 24, yet stand by our original statement. The 9-R Board upheld the administrative decision not to renew Paddy Lynch's contract on May 24. Here is a brief synopsis of what transpired that evening.
May 24: Members of the public (including Paddy Lynch) presented comments during the public comment period requesting the board revisit its decision to approve Paddy Lynch's non-renewal (see comment #2 below – Presentation to Board by Doug Zalesky). During the comments made by Paddy Lynch, Lynch presented the Board with copies of his personnel file and stated that he was opening them up to the public so that a full discussion of his performance could be addressed. The Board went into Executive Session (closed to the public) sometime around 11:30 p.m. During that session, Kristy Rodri, the board secretary, returned to the board room to retrieve the personnel files that Mr. Lynch had left for the board. The Board returned from executive session around 12:30 a.m. and adjourned the meeting without any discussion or comments about what went on in the executive session, nor taking any time for the debriefing that was part of the approved agenda. As he left, the district's attorney, Reese Miller commented that this was the first time he has seen a staff member take such an action to defend himself.
We do not know the particulars of the board discussion concerning Paddy Lynch during their executive session. However, their lack of public comment or action upon returning from the executive session upholds the stance they took on May 10. At the May 10th meeting, they did publicly vote, after the executive session, to support the administration's recommendation not to renew Paddy Lynch's contract.
Comment #4 Date Posted: June 1, 2005
Subject: DHS Lockdown
Sender category: Teacher
TO INFO at Durango School Talk May 23, 2005
Dear Durango Schools Community,
I'd like to comment publicly on the DHS lockdown incident and the general feeling and tone at the high school, but I am asking that my name be withheld. I have worked on the teaching staff at DHS and other 9-R schools and enjoy my job thoroughly.
When the lockdown announcement occurred, my shocked colleagues said this wasn't a drill. Kids were hustled in from the halls and everyone took refuge in their rooms as they could, often in cramped positions. The fear was palpable. Teachers used laptops to scan KSUT and the Herald for breaking news.
When the all-clear came and students learned the lockdown was to "run the drug dogs," their reaction varied. One said, "Welcome to Nazi Durango ." Another laughed it off and said lockdowns are a farce. Several were incensed by "the total waste of class time." Students were especially bothered by "the administration's lack of trust." Still others felt the incident was an intrusion into their privacy. Many were embarrassed by their private, unfounded fears. Nearly everyone was angry and resentful.
In 2001-2002 under Dan Patterson's leadership, DHS enjoyed a markedly different atmosphere than we have today. Teachers and students were upbeat. They thrived in a feel-good educational environment and relished in working for a principal who respected and trusted them. Mark Cooper was almost always at the front of the school greeting students, dishing out the smiles, and that's just how it was-a cheerful place for students and staff.
It is not an exaggeration to say that the feeling now among the faculty is dispirited and guarded; morale is frightfully low. The paranoia and lack of trust at the top influences both faculty and students. Of course people want to be trusted and will prove their trustworthiness to those who believe in them. But when that trust doesn't exist, regardless of evidence, even the best educators will check out their options elsewhere. This is such a waste as we have a stellar teaching staff. Regarding students, for those who walk the edge, so to speak, lack of trust leads to a "what the heck" attitude and behavior follows.
I'm crazy about kids. I want only the best for all the children of Durango who will inevitably walk through the doors of Durango High School , including my own. I'm asking 9-R to make the necessary changes so all our children can have a superlative education. The facility is plenty adequate, the teachers are excellent; it wouldn't take much to rejuvenate the high school. Let's do it for all of our children.
Name Withheld
Teacher, Durango, CO
Comment #3 Date Posted: June 1, 2005
Subject: Paddy Lynch Contract
Sender category: Parent
Presentation by Dr. Doug Zalesky to Board on May 24, 2005 School Board Presentation
Good Evening. I am Dr. Doug Zalesky from Hesperus. I am here tonight as the spokesman for a growing group of parents, students and taxpayers concerned about issues in the school district who have recently formed a community-wide group to establish ongoing dialogue about the serious problems we are encountering within the 9-R district. Our goal is to provide a catalyst for change at 9-R.
I appeared before you on May 10, when several of us spoke in objection to the administration's refusal to renew the teaching contract for Paddy Lynch, the metal fabrication instructor at Durango High School .
On May 10 we asked that the school board intervene in the decision to let Paddy's contract expire. We find the action taken by the school board on May 10 unacceptable and we are here again tonight to revisit the issue.
While it is true that the district's policy governance permits the board to delegate those decisions it chooses to your administrator, Dr. Barter, it is also true that the policy governance rules do NOT permit the board to escape its responsibilities imposed by Colorado state statute. You, as the board, are the legally responsible party - the ultimate arbiter - of fair and appropriate personnel decisions - and you cannot divest yourselves of your responsibilities by cloaking yourselves with policy governance. Our research shows that there is absolutely nothing in the rules of governance that would preclude you from intervening in this issue. You can do so tonight.
In the case of Paddy Lynch, we believe firmly that deeply held community values and principles have been violated not just by his contract non-renewal, but through the specific acts, attitudes and mismanagement he and his students have been subjected to.
We recommend that you reopen the Paddy Lynch contract non-renewal decision because:
1. His program and curriculum exemplify what Durango High School needs to do to improve its learning environment and scholastic climate for all students. He has been forced to battle, literally every step of the way, an administration that has refused to offer him the appropriate support, leadership and professional development opportunities he deserves.
2. We don't believe you have properly informed yourselves as school board members about the issues surrounding Mr. Lynch. You are, in fact, charged by your own rules of policy governance to provide yourselves with as many staff and external points of view and opinions as reasonably needed to make fully informed board decisions. In this instance, we believe you are merely taking the word of Principal Spradling and Dr. Barter, and that is simply not enough in this case.
3. It has come to our attention that certain students in Paddy's classroom were singled out by the administration and were offered free lunches if they cooperated by offering information about events in the metal fab classroom. Some would consider this bribery. A special needs freshman was threatened with a week of detention if he didn't relay information the administration was seeking to develop about Paddy. As school board members, you should know that the parents of this special needs student have taken their complaint to the State Board of Education.
3. Certain tactics were used and statements were made by upper level administrators that suggest an investigation needs to be launched immediately to ensure that Paddy and other teachers are treated fairly and responsibly, and to determine whether a system-wide attitude or culture exists that is the basis for the very low morale of teachers and students at Durango High School. This is evidenced by teachers leaving their careers at DHS early, by parents seeking and finding other public and private educational resources for their children and by students opting to graduate as early as possible because the high school does not have an environment in which they wish to remain.
4. There appears to be a punitive pattern of behavior developing between the school district administration towards it teaching personnel - particularly at Durango High School - in which submission to the will of the administration is the first prerequisite for continued service...not the quality of their skills or abilities.
We understand that Paddy and other teachers like him are “at will” employees who can be terminated for no cause. To terminate teachers arbitrarily and against the will of the majority of their respective students and their parents in itself violates community values and principles that we hold deeply.
If we permit these actions to go unchecked and un-investigated, then other educational professionals will suffer the same disregard and contempt in their careers at 9-R.
I want to make sure you understand that this newly formed watchdog group is not the enemy, although the administration may well view it as such. We are willing to invest our time, money and ourselves in the future of our students and we are willing to do what it takes to support the school board as it works to remedy the serious issues you face. That means we will be back before you and we will be bringing forward discussions that some may find difficult. We intend to hold accountable those who are responsible for the erosion of trust, communication and community values inherent to a public school system. These discussions and the ensuing decisions are critical to the future of our local educational system.
There is no doubt that you have a public relations problem that is escalating with every passing minute. The environment at Durango High School has become oppressive and dictatorial for teachers and parents, but most importantly for our students. We urge you to join with us in making the necessary changes to restore an environment in which we all feel welcome, one that is cheerful, nurtures good teachers and facilitates the transfer of knowledge.
You can begin that process tonight by reopening the issue of the teaching contract for Paddy Lynch. We urge you to simply do the right thing.
Doug Zalesky
Hesperus Colorado
(Editors note: We have received many lengthy communications questioning and protesting the District's decision not to renew Paddy Lynch's contract. Some have already appeared in The Durango Herald; others copy communications to state and local officials. Mr. Lynch's non-renewal has sparked the creation of a new group: 9-R Watchdog Coalition. We are currently limiting letters to the most comprehensive statements on each topic, in the hopes of creating broad dialogue across a number of important issues. However, if communications about Paddy Lynch continue to form a majority of the comments, we may create an entirely separate page for this issue.)
Comment #2 Date Posted: June 1, 2005
Subject: Paddy Lynch Contract
Sender: Student
To Info:
It is totally bogus that Mr. Lynch isn't coming back. Paddy is one of the best teachers at DHS. Kids that aren't even in his class really love him. That has to say something. The administration needs to open their eyes and listen to people and stop being narrow-minded, egotistical. That's my two cents anyway.
Sam Zalesky
DHS Freshman
Comment #1 Date Posted: June 1, 2005
Subject: Graduation Requirements
Sender: Parent
Presentation during meeting of May 24, 2005
To 9-R Board of Education board members:
In case I am unable to arrive to the meeting in time for Public Participation, I would ask that the Board President read this aloud to you.
Although I am for raising the graduation requirements, I am not convinced that simply meeting CCHE requirements will suddenly make DHS students better educated adults. The following is why:
1. According to Dr. Barter, the Durango area businesses are telling her that DHS graduates do not have the education for successfully entering into the work force. In what areas of study are these businesses stating our children are ill prepared? Is the problem a lack of basic math skills, low reading levels and writing ability, proper English skills? If so, shouldn't this be resolved by increasing the quality of the current required courses and not necessarily the quantity? Shouldn't 9-R have identified and be working to meet employer expectations? Shouldn't 9-R take advantage of access to Fort Lewis College faculty to identify more specifically the lack of preparation of DHS students who attend the college?
2. Why are 9-R children taking remedial courses upon entering their freshmen year at DHS, based on their CSAP scores? Shouldn't their middle school teachers be the ones who can best address their preparation during the last two semesters of their 8th grade year? I would trust middle school teachers to identify those who would need extra support before they leave 8 th grade; and expect that 9-R deliver this support long before the 8 th grade student leaves middle school. Why isn't 9-R offering these children classes during the summer before they enter high school so they do not have to take remedial courses? Why aren't the middle school and high school principals communicating with each other to find a solution to this?
3. Judy Michalski handed out a sheet at the public meeting at Miller on May 18 listing the support groups that aid students who are at risk of not meeting the proposed graduation requirements. These support groups have been in existence long before the proposed increase in graduation requirements came about. There were no new support strategies being developed on that list. So how can we expect by raising the graduation requirements that these existing support services will suddenly be the net to catch the students in danger of not graduating - if these services currently are not catching students at today's lower requirements? I don't believe we should put all of our eggs in one basket and expect that the Alpine Achievement that's been mentioned for the start of the new school year will be the miracle cure for the hole in 9-R's net.
After listening to parents' concerns and questions last Wednesday and talking with numerous other parents in our community, it sounds like the quality of the core educational classes needs to be addressed and improved. Higher graduation requirements alone will not miraculously prepare DHS students for the workforce or prevent their need for remedial courses upon entering college. I am for raising achievement levels for all children; eventually we should raise graduation requirements so that all of our children can be admitted to and succeed in Colorado colleges and universities without remediation, no matter when they decide that they do in fact want to pursue a college degree. However, a convincing argument has not been made that enough of our children will be better off simply because of new requirements. I do hope that this Board is thinking beyond this sound bite - Are all our children really going to be better educated by just simply raising the graduation credit requirements?
Sincerely,
Vickie Gallegos
Durango CO