New curriculum selection process delayed— new RFP must be issues now
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| I think we can all agree that there is dysfunction right now at every tier in the system. There are some really strong people in central, but they are far and few between. The Board of Ed is a disaster that likes to hear itself speak. Just attend one of their meetings, they prattle on forever about nothing while there are real, ignored problems. Dr. Smith is overwhelmed. Between the curriculum fiasco, the sexual assault and bullying cases, the gifted center craziness with principals getting last minute notice that they needed to offer new advanced classes, the rampant tech problems, the teachers complaining of inadequate training and zero input into anything, principals who are middle manager puppets and aren’t allowed to send out their own unvetted emails half the time, and other principals who should be firing insane or incompetent people but can’t seem to figure out how to get that done— oh, and all while losing their experienced teachers who’ve had it...it’s just, JC. |
Anonymous
From MCPS Conflict of Interest Regs “MCPS employees are expected to be knowledgeable about and conduct themselves in accordance with” the conflict of interest reg and are supposed to make sure their behavior is consistent with the reg’s policies and procedures. It‘s a conflict of interest to take advantage of relationships with those doing business with the school system for personal benefit. Employees shouldn’t use their position, and/or confidential or proprietary information they get while doing their job “for personal benefit.” If an employee isn’t sure about whether they face a conflict of interest they’re “encouraged” to disclose potential conflicts in advance or get “prior guidance” concerning conduct which is a concern. To avoid conflicts of interest, MCPS employees are supposed to recuse themselves “from participating in any procurement decision, selection, or other decision-making process” if they think they might personally benefit, because of the information they get as part of their job. An alleged violation of “is cause for an immediate investigation by the chief operating officer/designee.” If an employee violates the reg, she/he can be disciplined, “including reprimand, suspension, or termination, in accordance with applicable laws....” As for Dr. Smith, here is a snippet from somdnews.com., dated March 14, 2014. (Sorry, no link to original story.) “Dr. Smith has created a major hole in the Calvert County community by his manipulation of weak minded board of education members back in 2010 that allowed him and his top staff to give him the ability to cash in leave and also have the school system pay his 403B and health benefits for life.” |
Anonymous
|
Here’s the whole article though it’s from a change.org petition, I couldn’t find the original link either.
e copied an article that was posted in SOMDNEWS www.somdnews.com. Dr. Smith has created a major hole in the Calvert County community by his manipulation of weak minded board of education members back in 2010 that allowed him and his top staff to give him the ability to cash in leave and also have the school system pay his 403B and health benefits for life. Now his role is at the state level as temporary State Superintendent of Schools. This is what Jack did while at Calvert. Article dated Friday, March 14, 2014. Titled:Former Calvert County superintendent’s pay scrutinizedSmith claims all contracts were ‘approved and signed by board members’. When the former superintendent of Calvert County Public Schools Jack Smith left his job unexpectedly last July, then-new school board member Joe Chenelly and other local officials expressed their surprise. Smith’s employment contract with the Calvert County Board of Education, which began July 1, 2010, was scheduled to run through June 30, 2014 — the end of this current school year. On May 23, 2013, Smith and the school board amended this contract, stating Smith could resign from his position after giving at least 45 days of written notice to the board. On June 19 last year, Smith announced his resignation as Calvert County superintendent. He took a job less than a week later with the Maryland State Department of Education as chief academic officer for the state. But before Smith’s departure, newcomers to the board Chenelly and Kelly McConkey began asking questions regarding Smith’s compensation and did not like what they found. “During my campaign, I felt I was looking at the budget, and it didn’t make sense to me,” Chenelly said. “[The central office] seemed to be a top-heavy system, and it didn’t seem like there were an abnormally large number of people working at the central office, but it did seem like there was more spending at the central office than I knew why.” At the time of Smith’s departure, the executive administrative team of Calvert County Public Schools was made up of five members: Smith; Robin Welsh, former deputy superintendent and current principal of Calvert Country School; Kim Roof, former executive director of administration and current director of student services; Deborah Pulley, former executive director of school operations, who assumed the principal role at Mill Creek Middle School before she retired; and Tammy McCourt, who served as the chief budget and business officer until she began working for St. Mary’s County Public Schools in January. Chenelly said after he and McConkey came onto the board, Smith brought up giving teachers and the executive team raises. When Chenelly and McConkey asked Smith directly how much he made, “that became a point of contention, and he said you can look at the contract and figure it out for yourself,” Chenelly said, adding that when he continued to ask more questions, “out of the blue,” Smith asked for the addendum to his contract allowing him to leave with 45 days notice. “We granted him the addendum, and then he shortly after resigned,” Chenelly said. “Then we heard from the executive team about their contracts, and I was completely unaware of those contracts.” Chenelly and McConkey found that while Smith’s contracts paid him a base salary of $169,000 a year, his total compensation was upwards of $300,000 in his last year as superintendent. Smith has said that is due to benefits, including life and health insurance coverage that will continue for life for him and his wife, paid by the school system and approved by the previous board. Smith also was permitted to cash in annual sick leave he hadn’t used. During the last four years Smith’s reported salary remained at $169,000, his total compensation increased every year. From Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2008, payments of $195,274.18 were made — $26,274.18 beyond Smith’s reported salary. In 2009, Smith’s total compensation was $203,606.06 — $34,606.06 more than the reported salary. In 2010, the total was $261,491.98 — $92,491.98 more than the reported salary. In 2011, $318,561.23 was paid out, nearly $150,000 more than Smith’s reported salary. In 2012, which is the last amount available, Smith took home $330,888.54, which is $161,888.54 more than his reported salary of $169,000. In total for those years, Smith was compensated more than $464,000 beyond his base salary. The board also is currently paying Smith more than $125,000 during the course of two years for additional leave payout. In addition, Chenelly and McConkey said they were surprised to learn Smith had contracts with his executive team members, allowing them similar benefits and yearly salaries to increase by tens of thousands of dollars, according to records obtained from the school system. These benefits include cashing in annual leave and sick days, travel expense reimbursement and similar benefits to those awarded to Smith. The executive staff also took home more than their reported salaries because of these contract benefits. During some of those years, Welsh, Pulley, Roof and McCourt earned salaries that did not match those originally laid out in their contracts. Combined, they were compensated an additional $249,621 during Smith’s last four years. “The board was not aware that Dr. Smith had these contracts [with top administrators] until earlier this summer,” said Eugene Karol, current president of the board of education, who was on the board during Smith’s tenure and approved the superintendent’s contracts. “I really felt, normally, you don’t have contracts with people other than the superintendent,” Karol said. “I think if we were going to have [executive team contracts], they should have been contracts with the board, if we were going to have them at all.” “The average person could not figure out what they actually brought home,” McConkey said regarding the executive team’s salaries and contracts. “[Smith] repeatedly let us know he was the most underpaid superintendent out there. … Once we figured out how much he was really paid, he was not the most underpaid superintendent.” Smith publicly said during this time that his salary of $169,000 was continuing to stay the same because he would refuse a raise if teachers were not given a raise. Smith was praised at board meetings for being the lowest-paid superintendent in the state. Superintendents in St. Mary’s and Charles counties were receiving salaries of $279,435 and $289,050, according to recent information from the Maryland State Department of Education. As in Calvert, the superintendent of St. Mary’s County, Michael Martirano, and the superintendent in Charles County, Kimberly Hill, are permitted to cash in unused annual and sick leave, boosting their annual compensation. The student enrollment for St. Mary’s and Charles counties, respectively, in 2011 was 17,449 and 26,778, larger than Calvert County’s student enrollment at that time of 16,553, according to the MSDE. In Cecil County, with 15,827 students, and Wicomico County, with 14,520 students, superintendents’ salaries were reportedly $168,498 and $165,000, respectively, which were less than Smith’s $169,000 salary. “The biggest problem I had was that they told the teachers there was no money for four years, and teachers didn’t get raises for four years, but they continued to take care of themselves,” McConkey said. “It bothers me the amount of money they took home was taken out of the classroom and away from the kids. … [Smith] has contracts, so I’m not saying he’s not entitled to it.” Smith said recently those contracts with top administrators were no secret and “were discussed in open session for several years. If board members did not receive that information, then I can’t comment on that.” When asked about his contracts and salary, Smith said simply that his contracts were consistently approved by members of the board and discussed during open negotiations with the school system and the Calvert Education Association. “I negotiated the contract with [the board], and they are the ones who agreed to it and signed it,” Smith said. “The board members signed my contract … they made a contract with me. … There were 12 [board members] over the course of seven years.” The current interim superintendent, Nancy V. Highsmith, who assumed her position after Smith left, has received some criticism for her reorganization of staff that she said had nothing to do with any issues regarding the former administration. “It was not a cleaning house,” Highsmith said. “You bring in people that you know can work with you, and you bring in your own team, and that’s what I did.” When asked about the former superintendent’s contracts, she said they “speak for themselves.” “I think the more transparent the contracts are, so people understand exactly what’s in the contract, the better off the board and the superintendent are,” Highsmith said. “I was just totally appalled,” Calvert County Commissioner Gerald W. “Jerry” Clark (R) said about hearing this information from the board. “[Smith] was a contract employee, and to give someone health insurance for life, that was unbelievable. … We have people that work in county government and teachers who work 30 to 40 years and when they retire their health insurance isn’t completely paid for themselves let alone their spouse. I don’t see how any previous board member would approve that. … The superintendent was living within the contract that was negotiated between the members of the board. The fact that they were naive and liberal in what they negotiated … one would think they would learn from that mistake.” William J. “Bill” Phalen Sr., who is running for the board of education in this year’s election, was president of the Calvert school board when Smith was superintendent. He said the difference between Smith’s reported salary and his actual compensation was due to the benefits package put together by the board, which was justified because of Smith’s hard work. Phalen also said he did not “specifically remember” any executive contracts between Smith and members of the executive team but believes if they existed, Smith ran them by the board for approval. Joseph Sella, chief negotiator for the Calvert Education Association and Calvert Association of Educational Support Staff, said the teachers’ unions were tracking the executive team’s contracts since 2009. “[Smith] was running a public school system, not a corporation, and it certainly had golden parachutes built into it,” Sella said. “It’s very strange to say you’re the lowest-paid [superintendent in the region] and not comment on the extra monies he was receiving. … I can guarantee you our teachers would love to have health care for life. … The provisions were standard, according to our financial analyst, but you can’t say you’re the lowest-paid superintendent and then have all this extra money in there. That’s thinking outside the box in the wrong way.” Sella said the contracts followed protocol as far as being published on the school system’s website but that either few people took the time to look through the contract or they did not understand which benefits were awarded as additional compensation. Regardless, Sella said this was happening while the administration was “nickel and diming teachers for raises.” “Who is more important? The teachers delivering services to the students or the superintendent?” Sella asked. Moving forward, Chenelly said he is confident the school system is heading in the right direction and will be as transparent as possible. “As we seek out a permanent superintendent, that four-year contract will be very transparent, and anyone that is compensated in our school system will be as transparent as possible, and that’s the way it should have been in the first place,” Chenelly said. “People need to know this board and administration can be trusted. Some people may not trust the school system for a while, but we’re gonna earn their trust back.” “The key to all of this is whatever we do as a board, we need to be very transparent about what we do,” Karol said. “It’s important that we be transparent, pa |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
| Wow. Thx. |
Anonymous
The Board of Education has 8 adult members who are there because the voters elected them. If you don't like the members of the Board of Education 1. run for the Board yourself 2. persuade good people to run 3. work on the campaigns of good people I'm going to assume that you're doing at least one of those things. |
Anonymous
| ^^^sorry, 7 adult members |
Anonymous
I actually don’t think the BOE should be the one hiring and firing the super...it’s done differently in other places. |
Anonymous
| I don’t have a problem with Mr smith. He inherited a mess and is doing the right things. Bad people are leaving, that’s good. |
Anonymous
Where does the school board not hire/fire the superintendent of schools (besides in DC, which is a special case because schools chancellor is essentially a state-level position), and who do you think should do it? |
Anonymous
+1 |
Anonymous
|
This article explains a different way of managing superintendents, including this:
http://www.citymayors.com/education/usa_schoolboards.html Frustrated by decades of poor performance by students and infighting and inertia among superintendents and school boards, many mayors want state governments and city councils to give them the ability to bring about the sweeping structural overhaul they say the school systems in their cities require. The traditional superintendent-school board structure was established in the 1800s to insulate schools from corrupt city politics. Supporters point out that it is a very democratic governance structure. School boards enfranchise parents, especially minorities, and increase accountability because citizens can take their case directly to the school board. Opponents of the traditional governance structure argue that members of school boards often possess modest skills, are very conflict-prone, and cannot work in partnership with superintendents. They assert that mayors, knowing that voters can hold them directly responsible for school progress, will provide essential management and financing assistance. Mayors should be accountable for schools just as they are for police, fire, public works, housing, and other municipal services. To date, mayors have won control of school systems in 10 cities: Jackson, Mississippi. The mayor appoints the school board, and city council confirms the board. This system, in place since the 1950s, predates the current trend toward mayoral control. Jackson public schools enroll 32,000 students. Boston, Massachusetts. A petition submitted by the mayor and city council allowing the mayor to appoint a seven-member school committee, which then names a superintendent, was approved by the Massachusetts legislature and governor in 1991. Voters reaffirmed mayoral control in 1996. There are approximately 58,000 students in the Boston public school system. Chicago, Illinois. The US’s third-largest school system (435,000 students) has been under mayoral control since 1995. Illinois state law allows the mayor to appoint seven people to the Chicago Board of Education without city council approval. Baltimore, Maryland. Since 1997, the mayor of Baltimore and the governor of Maryland have jointly appointed school board members. There are more than 85,000 students in Baltimore public schools. Cleveland, Ohio. Since 1998, the mayor has had the power to appoint all nine members of the school board. At least four of the nine members must have significant experience in either education, finance, or business management. Cleveland voters reaffirmed mayoral control in 2002. About 60,000 students are enrolled in Cleveland’s public schools. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The 10,000-student school district has been under mayoral control since 2000. A five-member board of control, appointed by the mayor, acts as the governing body of the system. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania state legislature took control of the Philadelphia public school system in 2001. A five-member commission was created to replace the city’s former school board, with two members appointed by the mayor and three named by the governor. The system serves 200,000 students. New York, New York. The largest school system in the United States serves about 1.1 million students. The New York state legislature gave the mayor full control of the schools in 2002. Providence, Rhode Island. Since 2003, the mayor appoints a nine-member school beard with the approval of city council. The school system consists of approximately 25,00 students. Los Angeles, California. The California legislature gave the mayor of Los Angeles partial control of the nation’s second-largest school system (730,000 students). The law was to take effect 1 January 2007, but a judge ruled in December 2006 that it violated the state constitution. The mayor is appealing that decision. Mayors in Washington, DC, Seattle, Washington, and Albuquerque, New Mexico are also actively seeking control of the public schools in their cities. The few studies of school systems controlled by mayors generally show modest but statistically significant improvement in student academic performance since mayors took control. Yet, the number of city mayors clamoring to take control of schools is very small. Generally, the impulse comes from big cities where schools are perceived as so monumentally ineffective that any way to change the system seems worth a try. Most mayors, especially in smaller cities, clearly do not want responsibility for schools and prefer to work with the school broad and superintendent as partners. Many mayors across the US are counting on reforms such as charter schools and small-size schools to make a difference. In any event, most mayors would find it nearly impossible to get approval from the state governor, state legislature, and city council to change the school governance structure. While most everyone agrees that urban public schools in America are dysfunctional, there is no consensus among mayors, educators, parents, and legislators that mayoral leadership can benefit every city or every school system. Includes reporting from Nancy Zuckerbrod, Associated Press; Newsday; Kalman Hettleman, Baltimore Sun NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg has full control over the city's schools Also by Tony Favro American public schools are increasingly providing a wide range of social services In 2006, the California Legislature approved a US$55.1 billion budget for the state’s public schools. This represented a record increase of $5.1 billion over the previous year’s state education budget. Taxpayers in California supported the record spending increase because it promised to restore music, art, and physical education programs; hire guidance counselors; expand teacher recruitment and preschool programs; and buy new textbooks. These promises were fulfilled – but less than half of the spending increase was devoted to them. Most of the money paid for new or expanded social services: programs to discourage gang membership, treat AIDS, prevent cigarette smoking, provide childcare to teenage mothers, and the like. This is the new reality of public education for children in kindergarten through grade 12 in America. Schools are becoming the social safety net for students and their families. US public schools routinely provide before-school programs, breakfasts, lunches, after-school care, and evening programs. They offer programs to teach children about sex and how to drive. In structured and formal ways, they try to keep children away from drugs, make sure they don’t carry weapons, instill ethical behavior, prevent sexually transmitted diseases, fight alcohol abuse, prevent student suicides, prevent gang violence, teach conflict mediation, shelter homeless children, ensure students are vaccinated, combat obesity, and provide assistance to teenage mothers and their children, among many other social services. More |
Anonymous
| Obviously we’d need other structural changes to the county first... |
Anonymous
|
That's all good and well, but in the meantime, parents need to weigh in on the curriculum choice.
The BOE needs to hear in no uncertain terms that anything short of a proven high-quality curriculum is unacceptable. Also, almost no parent believes a curriculum that involves lots of TV shows or Apps is helpful especially for young children. I'm so sick of hearing all my kid did is watch TV and play games all day while their teacher went AWOL. |
Anonymous
+2 But superintendents tend not to stay long and he is on the older side... |