February 27, 2007

Dear Members of the Board for School District 9-R, 

Although not my preferred method of communication, I feel compelled to write to you today in response to recent "official comments" made by 9-R regarding questions recently posed to you. These issues were raised at the Key Communicators' meeting dated February 21, 2007 and pertinent excerpts from the Public Information Office appear below.  Although some of the information contained within Ms. Uroda's document has some validity, the many discrepancies must be pointed out so that you as a board are completely and accurately informed. I ask again that you reflect on whether this continued practice of the superintendent failing to provide full and accurate information to you is appropriate. As you become aware of the contradictions in these communications, I hope you will consider whether this is how an elected board of representatives should be portrayed to the public at large. Lastly, I wonder about the missing information relevent to the other questions presented to you last week. 

1. "The Key Communicator program" – Although I am not familiar with the selection process, there is no mention by Ms. Uroda as to how you ensured that the members selected represent the general public. I also should tell you that I personally was approached by a spouse of a key communicator telling me there has been virtually NO timely communication with them. For example, a letter was sent to them on the Friday before last Tuesday's meeting informing them of it. Additionally, Monday prior to the meeting was a holiday. Lastly, when asked why the communicator was not called as a courtesy, they were informed that their phone number had been lost. Certainly you would expect more resourcefulness and progressive thinking by administration - at a minimum looking in a phone book to contact someone labeled as a key communicator.
   
2. "Community members feel as if they are not being heard" – Why must the district continually return to the issue of coach Voss and deflecting the real issue? The issues that have been placed before you are not about coach Voss. This appears to be a blatant attempt to deflect answering the real questions. Many times community members have been asked to participate in assisting the school district in its decision making process. At numerous times, with numerous task forces and committees, 9R has ignored or acted against the recommendation of the parents that they themselves invited to help. Additionally, if Ms Uroda had her information correct, she would know the DHS PAAC group was not established last spring just to review the complaint process. Records would indicate that the group was responsible for developing processes that the district had been negligent in creating for District athletic programs to succeed. Examples are a new survey; a recommendation for an action plan for improvement; a uniform code of conduct by players and coaches; the matter of coach contracts which were not, and may still not be in place; and a needs assessment to assist in identification of areas of emphasis. Let's all move on to the real issues for a change.
   
3. "Occupancy limits at the board meeting of Jan. 30" – In speaking with Chief Dunaway, he indicated to me that the fire district was contacted regarding the limit of attendance in the board room. He also indicated that the district offered potential alternatives to the district to handle large crowds. I was told during my presentation by a member of the administration that the Fire Marshal "just happened to show up." This clearly was not the case, and again demonstrates the misrepresentations that are continually used by the district. Everyone was fully aware that there was going to be a very large crowd that evening. No attempt whatsoever was made to accommodate the number of people. In fact, according to Ms. Uroda the police were used as a method of crowd control . I again ask the question: why were accommodations not made for the large audience if you knew that the crowd would be large?
4. Presence of police officers on Jan 30 - Initially I was told that security was going to be present to control the crowd based on the previous meeting regarding the release of one of the coaches where tempers flared. If I recall, Ms. Uroda was not at that meeting and thus could not observe what I did by being present. First and foremost, people were frustrated by the fact that they were attending a meeting to better understand the situation but NO information was given except “we're moving in a new direction”, “we cannot discuss any details”, “ the decision was completely mine.” There were no answers given which led to extreme frustration and anger. When asked “What is the new direction?” they could not answer as to what it was. Why in the world would you conduct an information meeting without providing information??? Additionally, when the coaching staff did speak, were you board members aware that one of them cursed? Why have the profanities and character of the meeting been put on the back of parents as they were the ones that were inappropriate? I would suggest that Ms. Uroda learn all of the details prior to releasing information that is not completely accurate. Additionally, although there was at least one threat to a parent after they spoke in public, I was informed that the board members did not directly receive any threats to them. Thank you for providing police to protect the parents.
5. Early release – I have spoken to many teachers who have informed me that they are in favor of early release; however, they were not in favor of the offer presented. They supported the proposal because if they hadn't, a proposal would not be presented at all. I would highly recommend an anonymous focus group of willing teachers to get help you get to the real truth.

At the presentation I gave at the last board meeting there were several questions that are still not answered. The issues and statements that Ms Uroda presents are low hanging fruit. Let's begin asking the difficult questions with real answers. Let's begin being open and honest.
Following are some of the still outstanding important questions in need of answers:

What is the status of the "climate survey" about leadership at all levels of 9-R administration?
What is the status of follow up to the special independent consultant who reported that district staff members perceive an atmosphere of fear and intimidation?
What is the status of students being improperly searched?
What is the status of students being harassed at school?
Why are parent and community task forces formed, if their recommendations are to be ignored? Why do members frequently decide these are not worth their time?
Why has the superintendent failed to see that a SAC committee was created at the high school? Does the board depend on is accountability system to be working?
Why are student athletes being threatened with their play for misunderstandings?
Why are legal issues allowed to go to “the night before the court” before being settled? How many lawsuits have been filed against 9-R during the past 6 years?

Your response to these and other questions would be greatly appreciated.

Respectfully Submitted

Rick O'Block

--------------------------------------

====================================================================================

OFFICIAL 9-R COMMUNICATION
From: Deborah Uroda Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 3:20 PM Subject: Key Communicators Meeting

"Key Communicators issues and answers" From the Feb. 21, 2007 meeting

Why were there police at the school board meeting last month? Why can't more than 50 people be in the board room at one time? How will the school district hold schools accountable to ensure that time for Professional Learning Communities is used effectively?

These and other issues are abuzz in Durango School District 9-R, according to Key Communicators who met with school board Tuesday, Feb. 20. Here are the issues raised. The district response/explanation follows. We hope this will help you with your conversations with the public.

Concern: The Key Communicator program is a joke; it's not diverse enough, participants are hand picked, and the public can't participate in the discussion.

District Response: This is a pilot program, and Key Communicators have met only three times with the board. The board will continue to assess the program's effectiveness and will make changes with feedback from participants.

* * *

However, the complaint process is not the process the district uses to evaluate employee performance, and in the complaint process the district developed with parents last year, the district clearly indicated that the process could not usurp the district's authority to "evaluate, discipline, suspend, or dismiss, or take other personnel actions regarding a coach/activity sponsor."

Unlike tenured teachers, coaches - and administrators for that matter - are year-to-year employees who have no right to "due process." However, the district took extra care with its evaluation process last year to ensure that coaches had a fair opportunity to improve performance before the district determined that a contract would not be renewed.

The district evaluated all coaches last spring. Here's what happened:

• Evaluations include whether coaches adequately follow the code of conduct, and they assess behavior on and off the field, relationships with parents and players, relationships with other coaches, support of district initiatives, care of equipment, etc.
• The evaluations included results from parent and student surveys that the Parent Athletic Advisory Council helped to develop.
• The surveys were used to identify trends in the concerns that parents expressed and to use as talking points with coaches to help them improve their programs.
• These trends were used to form the basis of action plans that each coach was expected to prepare in order to improve the quality of their specific sport, as well as that of the entire athletic program at DHS.
• No coach received an unsatisfactory evaluation as a result of the parent surveys, because the district wanted to give all coaches an opportunity to improve their performance this year.
• All coaches also were given the this year to show improvement. In this case, the football coach had the fall season to make changes identified in his spring evaluation.

The district's decision to hire a different coach next year is based on the findings of the thorough and fair evaluation of employee performance from last spring and this fall. While the coach's supporters may not like the decision, the board found that district administrators appropriately followed its policies and procedures.

Although some district critics have said the non-renewal is reflective of "continuing problems" with process and communication, their reactions are not unexpected. Any time that leadership in a school district makes a tough or controversial decision, it's not unusual for those who disagree to cry foul.

* * *

On Tuesday, Jan. 30, district Safety Compliance Coordinator Kathy Morris contacted the DFRA asking what the district could do to increase occupancy to accommodate the expected protesters. DFRA spokesman Tom Kaufman told Morris that occupancy could be increased by 10 percent -- or five people -- if a fire marshal were present. Unfortunately, all available fire authority personnel were at the Durango Arts Center and the Diamond Circle Theater that night to monitor the Snowdown Follies production as they do every year. Morris was warned not to exceed the occupancy rating, and therefore, the district was forced to turn away participants.

* * *
Concern: The presence of police officers at the Jan. 30 and Feb. 13 board meetings was intimidating. Why were they there? Will they be at all meetings from now on?

Police officers attended the Feb. 13 meeting, because board members and community members had been threatened with physical harm over the coach's non-renewal, and the district wanted to ensure the safety of board members and those who attended the meeting.

Police officers will be present whenever the district believes that the safety of board members or meeting participants is at risk.

* * *

Concern: The community doesn't support early release for implementation of Professional Learning Communities. The teachers don't support it. The district should have selected a late start on a Wednesday. How will the school district hold schools accountable to ensure that the time is used effectively?

District Response: Many teachers DO support the implementation of Professional Learning Communities, but not all teachers agree on the date and time that will be used to practice this proven model for increasing student achievement.

That's why Superintendent Mary Barter asked principals to work with their teachers and each other to find the time in the school district calendar so that teachers could collaborate in Professional Learning Communities.

Principals explored a number of different release programs in districts elsewhere in Colorado, and districts chose release times that made the most sense for their communities. Some chose late starts for Monday or Wednesday mornings, others chose early release on Wednesday afternoons or on Fridays. Principals recommended Friday afternoon for Professional Learning Communities for a number of reasons: Mornings are prime time for instruction, when students are alert and ready to learn. Friday afternoons are the worst time for instruction, when students are distracted by their anticipation of the coming weekend. Although not all teachers agree, many have said that they prefer the Friday afternoon release time, because it will allow them to summarize and analyze a week's worth of work so that they can plan effectively for a fresh start on Mondays. Many students in the district already leave school early on Fridays to participate in extracurricular sports and academic activities. An average of 68 Durango High School students miss instruction weekly because of extracurricular activities on Fridays. (Some weeks it's as low as 29 students, and others, as high as 180 students.)

Fewer students are enrolled in the Kid Time program on Fridays, indicating less need. By scheduling the early release on Fridays, students involved in extracurricular activities won't miss so much school.

While the community may not initially support release time for Professional Learning Communities, we know the community supports student learning and acquisition of the skills and knowledge they need to become effective citizens.

The Professional Learning Community model is a research-based, proven strategy to increase student achievement. Research has demonstrated that substantive, sustainable improvement in student achievement occurs in those schools that operate as a professional learning community or a similar collaborative, results-based environment.

Finding the time to use the model is the challenge. Adding time to the existing calendar would require negotiations with the Durango Education Association and could cost as much as $450,000 more a year to effectively implement Professional Learning Communities. The district doesn't have those resources. The district believes that the time carved out of the school week will give teachers the opportunity to improve their teaching so they can be more effective with the time they DO have in the classroom.

* * *

Concern: When will the school board start videotaping board meetings again?

District Response: The board discontinued videotaping for several reasons:

• Sound and video quality were poor. The community members who did watch the board meeting on Durango Community Access Television complained that they could not hear discussions and camera positioning was inadequate. Viewers expected broadcasts on par with Durango City Council meetings, but the school district does not have access to cable television franchise fees to pay for the equipment like the city has. The poor quality reflected poorly on the board.
• An inordinate amount of staff time had been diverted from the district's primary mission to educate children to videotape and edit board meetings for broadcast.
• The board has spent more than $10,000 to try to piece together a sound and video system that would turn a 1917 auditorium into a 21st century board room. The district did not want to continue adding equipment piecemeal until it could provide a more permanent, systemic solution.
• Less than 12 percent of the district's population watches local community access television, according to a survey the City of Durango conducted several years ago. It's likely that even fewer watch board meetings. Investing significant amounts of staff time and funding to videotape board meetings for such a small constituency was not considered an effective use of scarce resources until such time that the district could invest in equipment that could be used for both board meetings, community meetings, and the district's educational mission.

Next steps Board meetings currently are recorded as .mp3 files and may be downloaded after the meeting from the district Web site at www.durangoschools.org. The district is currently exploring avenues to stream audio live during the board meetings over the Internet. Equipment costs are expected to be about $5,000. The district has contracted with R. Michael Bell and Associates of Durango to prepare a master plan to renovate the old auditorium so that it can be equipped for live television broadcasts. It's anticipated that the renovated board room would be made available for live broadcasts of other community meetings and events. The district will have to seek grant funding from the Colorado Historical Society to pay for the renovations.* * *

Concern: There's a rumor that the high school plans to eliminate career and technical education.