Toledo magnet school is all about community

Community leaders greet students on their first day at the
Martin Luther King, Jr. Academy for Boys
(photo from Toledo Public Schools)

It was the first day of school in Toledo and Rev. John C. Jones was up early.

Not because he is a teacher or administrator. Not because he has children in the Toledo Public Schools.

He was part of a group of men recruited to greet students at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Academy for Boys, a magnet school in the Toledo Public School District.

"We greeted every single kid," he said. "We wished them a good year, made sure they had a good handshake, helped some fix their ties. We wanted them to see the faces of positive role models as they started the new school year."

Rev. Jones said some of the kids were a bit nervous about "walking the gauntlet," especially the kindergartners, but most had been through it before and knew what to expect.

"They were excited to come through the line," he added. "You could see the excitement in their faces. But what was more critical was the excitement in the parents' faces and their appreciation for the men for investing their time to see that their child had a good start to the year."

Rev. Jones has been involved in leadership development and education for a number of years.

"Education is the bedrock of every advancement that takes place," he said. "There are things that happen in the psyche of a child that allows them to build and develop. Positive role models are one of them. We hope the boys look at us and say, 'I can do this just like this guy in front of me who is modelling success.'"

Willie A. Ward, the principal at the Academy, said it's all about community. The school population is 98 percent African-American and more than 75 percent qualify for free or reduced lunch.

"Our community has some individual and unique challenges when it comes to education," Ward said. "When our young men can see others being successful, they can internalize that success as we emphasize and urge them to be college or career ready through their education."

He explained that all the students at the Academy, regardless of their background or economic status, need to know they have the support of the community.

"It's great for the kids to be able to say 'This is my pastor and he's here to support me,'" Ward added.

The school, which serves pre-kindergarten through 6th grade, emphasizes respect, responsibility and building positive relationships with others. As a magnet school of choice, it accepts applications from anyone within the school district. Students are admitted based upon attendance and behavior as well as parent involvement, Ward said.

Parents are required to sign a contract with the school and must commit to at least 10 hours of service throughout the school year.

"Parents have to agree to be involved in their child's education and to support the direction of the school," Ward explained. "Whenever there is parental involvement, the school and the child will be successful."

During the Academy's first years as an all-boys school, the school's state report card showed improvement increasing from a 66.6 performance index to a 93.3 performance index, on a 120-point scale. By the 2011-12 school year, the students were out-performing the district average in both reading and math in grades 3 through 6.

But several things happened in the district that negatively impacted test scores and student performance.

"We had a huge change-over in staff," Ward said. "We also went up to 8th grade and then back to just 6th grade. And then the testing changed. As soon as you learn what's on the test and what the kids have to know, they change the test. We knew it was going to happen, but it still takes time to adjust."

Ward believes he now has a stable teaching staff and a good culture in the school, with "everyone on the same page in terms of the expectations of teachers, parents and students" and is confident their school report card will improve from the "F" it received for 2014-15.

He said they extended the tie requirement in the dress code to kindergartners this year, because "something as simple as a dress code can change the mindset of the children."

"We've found that if you look your best, you perform at a high level," he explained. "It's had a major impact on students and on teachers in their delivery to the students. Additionally, the teachers are here and understand the school's mission and vision. You'll see all this reflected in the (test) results for this school year."

And the reinforcement from positive role models throughout the year will continue to provide encouragement, Ward added.

"We didn't just invite the men for the first day of school," he said. "Our objective is to get these role models into the building on a regular basis."

Ward has invited them to talk with the students at lunch time, to be involved in preparations for the state achievement tests, and perhaps read with the kids.

"We want to take advantage of the fact that we have people who can come and give individual support to the students," Ward added. "Last year we got about 30 percent who came in as their schedule permitted to take part in the school."

He said that others who were not able to provide physical support made donations to help pay for field trips, clubs, celebrations and recognitions.

Rev. Jones said he is proud to be a part of the mentoring program that is being built at the Academy.

"There is research that exists that speaks to the importance of community engagement and involvement particularly in the learning for students," he said. "If you provide positive reinforcements - if they see models of that throughout the school year - they will want to emulate that behavior."

And what did the kids think?

"We took a straw poll of what they were feeling," Ward said. "The impact was huge!"

"We teach them how to give a firm handshake and to look people in the eye and show respect and this first day greeting was an opportunity for them to practice that," he added. "To hear (a student) say 'I felt really good,' and see that student with a gleam in their eye, ready to go - it was rewarding."

"We can talk all day about the negatives that revolve around our kids," Rev. Jones added. "We spend a bunch of time telling kids what they cannot do. We need to spend at least a proportionate amount of time telling kids what they can do. And that's what we're doing."

If Pickett were a charter school, it'd be closed by now

"Whenever people talk glibly of a need to achieve educational "excellence," I think of what an improvement it would be if our public schools could just achieve mediocrity."  ~  Thomas Sowell

Toledo Public School's Pickett Academy has been in
academic emergency or failing for more than a decade.

I recently came across this quote and thought it was perfect to explain what is going on at Pickett Academy, formerly known as Pickett Elementary, in Toledo, Ohio.

But it's also a good quote to explain what's going on in Ohio in general as the legislature considers new rules for charter schools.

Let's start with Pickett.

Pickett used to be kindergarten through sixth grade, but was recently changed, as part of an overall restructuring of the Toledo Public Schools. It now goes to eighth grade.

For more than 12 years, Pickett has been failing. It was in academic emergency under the old state grading system and has had a failing grade since the new school report cards have been issued.

In 2011-12, the school met none of the performance indicators and did not meet the "adequate yearly progress" indicator.

In 2012-13, under the new letter grades, the school received a D on its Performance Index (which measures the test results of every student) and an F on Indicators Met (which tells how many students passed the state tests at a minimum level).

In order to "meet" an indicator, at least 75% of students must pass the test.

The school met zero - none - of the 14 indicators during the 2012-13 school year.

It also scored an F for Gap Closing, which tells if every student is succeeding regardless of income, race, culture or disability. The state set an Annual Measurable Objective of 83.4% in math and 78.5% in reading. Pickett's overall score in reading was 53.3% and was 36.4% in math.

So what happened in the 2013-14 school year?  More of the same.

Another D on the Performance Index. Another F on Indicators Met with, again, none of the 14 indicators achieved. And another F in Gap Closing.

You would think, with scores and grades like these over more than a decade, that students who would attend Pickett would be taking advantage of the Ohio EdChoice Scholarship.

The EdChoice Scholarships give options to kids who are, or would be attending, an underperforming school.  Parents can use the scholarship to send their child to participating private schools.

So how many students who would have been stuck in this particular failing school have opted for a better education?

That's a good question. According to a spokesman at the Ohio Department of Education, data on the number of EdChoice Scholarships issued by underperforming school is available. As soon as they email the information, it will be included in this blog post.

Regardless of the number of students leaving, it is certain that not all students at Pickett are doing poorly, just that a vast majority of them are.

Which brings us back to the quote - and the Ohio General Assembly.

There are a lot of people up in arms about the performance of charter schools - which are also public schools - especially after a pretty negative report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Fordham was the first non-profit agency to be approved by the Ohio Department of Education as a sponsor of community schools. Fordham's report, released in December, said that "too often Ohio's charters have produced mediocre results" and that, on average, charter school students "make less academic progress than their district counterparts."

Fordham made several recommendations for improvement and some are included in House Bill 2 and as part of Gov. John Kasich's budget recommendations.

Certainly, poorly performing schools should not be allowed to continue to crank out poorly educated students. And an examination of public charter schools is not only valid, but necessary.  Parents need this information - and information on traditional public schools - so they can make good decisions for their children and find a school that best fits them.

But among all the angst and hand-wringing over charter schools that don't do well after three years, a lot of politicians, teachers unions, special interest groups and lobbyists are ignoring schools like Pickett that have been failing students for more than a decade.

In fact, if Pickett had been held to the same standard as existing charter schools, it would have closed quite some time ago.

For instance, in the 2013-14 school year, charter schools serving up to third grade would automatically be closed if, for two of the last three years, the school had been in Academic Emergency. While Pickett now serves up to eighth grade, it's been in Academic Emergency for over a decade.

The problem isn't that so many kids are stuck in failing schools without options, or that charter schools aren't doing as well as other public schools, or that parents cannot afford a private school education - though all these are, indeed, problems parents and communities face.

The bigger problem is that the various school options are not held to similar, much less the same, standards.

According to a December 2011 report from the Center for Education Reform, between 1997 and 2011, nearly 100 (99 to be exact) charters were closed for failing to meet their obligations. A January 12 Columbus Dispatch article noted that closings are now over 150.

There are 233 schools on the current List of Designated Public Schools, the schools that are underperforming and have been failing for at least two of the last three years.  Students who attend, or would be slated to attend, those schools are the ones eligible for EdChoice Scholarships.

Interestingly, the List has a "Closing" column, which identifies schools that are in the process of being closed.

Guess how many of those 233 failing schools are closing.

None.

THAT is the problem. Traditional public schools which are failing students are allowed to remain open while the other public education option - charter schools - must close when they fail.

Now, if the traditional public schools weren't failing overall, or just failing to meet the needs of specific students, there wouldn't been a "need" for other options, though there would still exist a "want."

No school can be all things for all students, which is why school choice is so important to parents and students.

But if we're not going to open the doors so wide that ALL students can have a choice, then the least we can do is ensure that traditional public schools are treated the same as charter public schools and close down the ones that are continually failing to meet even the most basic of standards - like Pickett.

After all - it's "for the children."

Toledo school officials to be investigated in data scrubbing scandal

The Ohio Department of Education is going to investigate whether to suspend or revoke the licenses of staff in seven school districts, including Toledo, that scrubbed student attendance data. Non-licensed staff in the districts could received other types of punishments.

The ODE's professional conduct office will investigate whether any licensed individuals participated in "conduct unbecoming to the teaching profession" by contributing to the inaccurate data that was submitted to the state.

ODE said it found seven improperly reported Education Management Information System data during the 2010-11 school year. The other districts are Campbell City, Cincinnati Public, Cleveland Metropolitan, Marion City, Northridge Local, and Winton Woods City schools.

"Misreporting of attendance data or 'scrubbing' jeopardizes the entire accountability system in Ohio and will not be tolerated," Superintendent of Public Instruction Dick Ross said in a release. "These actions will be investigated and may result in professional conduct sanctions up to and including suspension or revocation of licensure."

In 2012, State Auditor Dave Yost began looking into the practices of some districts to un-enroll students and then re-enroll students in a presumed effort to exclude those students' test scores from the districts' report card calculation.

The department reviewed more than 8,500 student records including:

• 39 records in Campbell City Schools and found 37 were improperly withdrawn.
• 34 in Canton City Schools and found zero were improperly withdrawn.
• 148 in Cincinnati Public Schools and found 130 were improperly withdrawn.
• 7,624 in Cleveland Metropolitan Schools and found 3,540 were improperly withdrawn.
• 58 in Marion City Schools and found zero were improperly withdrawn.
• 63 in Northridge Local Schools and found 44 were improperly withdrawn.
• 614 in Toledo Public Schools and found 425 were improperly withdrawn.
• 14 in Winton Woods City Schools and found 11 were improperly withdrawn.

Report cards for the 2010-11 school year will be recalculated and rereleased for the six districts that had improperly withdrawn students, adding those students' test scores back into the grade card calculation, ODE said.

"We are committed to collecting accurate data and will require districts to submit corrective action plans to address these concerns," Ross said. "We also determined that approximately 50% of the records reviewed indicated the improper withdrawal of students from schools and should be included in the district and school report card calculations."

ODE said it will investigate districts' 2011-12 school year EMIS data to determine whether improper reporting of student withdrawals occurred in that year as well.

Fiscally conservative Ohio school board turns a deficit into a surplus while cutting taxes and giving raises

In light of the fact that Swanton has a school levy on the ballot today (after it was defeated in May), and several others, including Toledo Public Schools, will have levies on the ballot in November, I thought this was an important article to share.

It's from EAGNews.org, the website for the Education Action Group Foundation in Muskegon, MI. It's about the success of Springboro Schools here in Ohio.

SPRINGBORO, Ohio – It’s tempting to describe the financial turnaround that’s taking place in the Springboro school district as something of a miracle.

How else to describe the district’s dramatic reversal in fortune?

In the span of just four years, Springboro schools have gone from projecting a massive deficit of $28.7 million to planning for a surplus of nearly $7.2 million by 2017.

That’s a swing of nearly $36 million to the district’s benefit.

That’s unheard of during these tough economic times in which many U.S. school districts are cutting student programs, laying off teachers and raising taxes.

Here’s something else that’s unheard of: Instead of just stockpiling the extra money in the district’s bank account, Springboro school board members are preparing to give a portion of it back to taxpayers.

Last month, Springboro board members voted to place a five-year levy renewal on the November ballot that will actually cut taxes by 15 percent, which equals about $1.3 million a year. The levy would shrink the projected surplus by several million dollars, but the once-needy district would still be left with a tidy sum in reserve.

In a press release, Springboro school board President Kelly Kohls told taxpayers that if they pass the levy, the district “will be able to move forward without any type of levy for some time to come.”

It’ll be up to voters whether or not to accept the deal, though it’s difficult to imagine them turning it down.

It’s not just taxpayers who are reaping the benefits from Springboro schools’ improved financial condition. The district just agreed to a new contract with the local teachers union that gives many educators a 12 percent pay raise – through step increases and a base pay increase – over the next two years.

And even though the new contract also increases teachers’ health insurance contributions – from 15 to 20 percent – most teachers will still see their take home pay increase by about 10 percent over the next two school years, according to Kohls.

This district focused on a 'children-first' approach, adopted zero-based budgeting (where they don't start with last year's spending and add to it), and their test scores improved.

Continue reading...

But that's not enough. Unions didn't want the reduced levy on the ballot. Giving back money just isn't done and if the district isn't 'flush with cash' it doesn't need, how can the unions demand - and get - even more?

Taxpayers will probably like this a lot, though, but we'll have to wait until November to find out for sure.

There's the big question: Can you imagine any school district in Lucas County doing the same thing?

Your answer is 'probably not' - which is a sad commentary on our local educational system and the people we elected to do what is best 'for the children.'

101 million reasons to like TPS performance audit report

When Linda Recio of Evergreen Solutions began her presentation of the Toledo Public Schools comprehensive performance audit, she said people would find things they loved and things they hated in the report.

There are over 100 million reasons for taxpayers to love the report: if all recommendations are implemented, the estimated yearly and one-time net cost savings will total $101,221,710 over the next five school years.

Average yearly savings are around $20 million per year.

You can read the full report here and the executive summary, which was presented at tonight's special board meeting here.

Each chapter focuses on a specific area examined and commendations are included along with recommendations.

Recio took special care to highlight, several times, how the full report contains specific data and research that supports each of the recommendations.

For instance, the audit recommends eliminating a minimum of 15 assistant principle positions at the elementary level and six positions at the high school level. While this may seem like a lot of positions, Recio pointed out that the current number of assistant principals exceeds not only AdvancED (the educational accreditation association for the majority of states) but also TPS's own union contract.

The same is true of clerical staff: "...clerical staffing far exceeds the district’s own staffing plan standards at
the elementary level," the report reads.

I was surprised at the cost of legal services. I knew TPS used various law firms for various purposes, but did not realize how costly it was.

Legal "expenditures between 2010-11 and 2011-12 doubled, and if 2012 expenditures are prorated through June 2013, the legal expenses for 2012-13 may be well over $2 million," the report states. Additionally, "the General Counsel has no contract with the district nor was an RFP issued at the time a resolution was approved by the Board."

The average cost per pupil for legal services in urban school districts of similar size in Ohio is $20.94. But the average cost per pupil for TPS was $56.50 - more than double.

The audit recommends hiring an in-house counsel and reducing expenditures by at least $20 per student.

Other recommendations highlighted by Recio were:

* eliminate supplemental pay for work that is included in an employee's job description;
* reduce the number of school psychologists;
* create an accountability system for textbooks (she said some textbooks were sitting in a warehouse in unopened boxes);
* conduct a comprehensive classification and compensation study;
* eliminate 44 buses from the bus inventory and eliminate excess spare buses, too.
* reduce overtime for School Resource Officers;
* require all TPS staff to wear IDs whenever on TPS property;
* institute a cap on the total number of copies per user (some schools had no copies while one had over 38,000 with no accountability on who made the copies);
* eliminate the 200 phone lines that are not being used, but are being paid for; and
* terminate computer access for departing employees immediately.

Perhaps the most controversial recommendation is to further consolidate two sets of K-8 schools. Noting that this was an example of one recommendation people may hate, board member Lisa Sobecki asked "how can we move kids again in our district?" But she also said she was "open to looking at different ways of operation."

All board members praised the professionalism of the report and noted that Evergreen promised a comprehensive performance audit in 90 days - and delivered, to the date.

There was also praise for staff and their cooperation with the audit; for community members who pushed for it; and for the Evergreen team.

Recio also had praise for the TPS.

Dr. Cecelia Adams, chairman of the finance committee and a driving force for the audit, along with her co-chairman Bob Vasquez, praised the transparency of the process and how Evergreen worked with TPS to ensure that everyone - board members, staff and public - all had access to the audit report at the same time. Recio told me later that at 5 p.m., the same time she delivered a hard copy to each board member, they loaded up the report on the TPS website so everyone would have the same access.

"This is the most transparent presentation I've ever seen," Recio said.

Board members and staff will review the details of the full report and report any errors or inaccuracies to the treasurer who, as the project manager for the audit, will go over them with Evergreen. Recio was very clear and adamant that only errors or inaccuracies would be corrected; that the recommendations will stand.

If any errors are found, they will be corrected and a final report issued.

Board members encouraged the public to read the entire report and said they would welcome any other recommendations for saving money.

The key, Vasquez and Adams told me after the meeting, is implementation. "Now the hard work begins," Vasquez said.

Recio advised the board that Evergreen does have implementation strategies they could recommend and they would provide them to the board. She said a quarterly report to the community detailing each recommendation, who was responsible for implementation and noting progress on it had been successful in other communities.

Side Note: Elected officials usually hear when they do something wrong or when people don't agree with them. I personally thanked each board member for going forward with the audit and told them I would support them in implementing the recommendations. If you feel so inclined, you can contact them here.

Now it is up to us to hold them accountable for implementation. It will be a lot of work, but isn't $100 million worth it?

TPS could save $20 million per year, performance audit says

Just a quick update:

The total amount of yearly and one-time savings identified in the Toledo Public Schools Performance audit is
$101,221,710.

This is over a 5-year period and here is the breakdown:

2013-14: $18,664,783
2014-15: $20,084,991
2015-16: $20,582,497
2016-17: $20,740,557
2017-18: $20,737,497

Total yearly NET savings are $100,810,325 plus the one-time savings of $411,385 come to a total identified in the report of $101,221,710.

There are some costs but they total less than $2.5 million over the five years are already deducted from the NET savings listed above.

First review of TPS performance audit findings

The Toledo Board of Education will hold a special meeting on April 3, 2013 at 5 p.m. to discuss the first version of the Performance Audit of the District by Evergreen Solutions.

The meeting will be in the board room of the Thurgood Marshall Building, 420 E. Manhattan Blvd. The board room is on the second floor and just to your right when you come in the main (Manhattan side) entrance of the building.

It is my understanding that both an electronic version and a limited number of written versions should be available at that time, ensuring that all members of the public have access to this public document.

It is also my understanding that board members and staff will have an opportunity to question various aspects of the report, though only factual errors will be changed for the next version of the report.

Having this preliminary report available after three months of study is in keeping with the promise Evergreen made to take only three months to do a comprehensive performance audit of the district. I also understand that recommendations that are dependent upon contractual negotiations will be identified as such.

This is a terrific step that the BOE took and we should be there to not only see the recommendations but also to support them in implementing them.

Hope to see you there!!!!

Pecko out at TPS

Monday I questioned if Jerome Pecko, the superintendent of Toledo Public Schools, was on his way out.

It wasn't anything specific, but a combination of comments by board members and some reflection on past performance that led me to question if his contract would be renewed.

Like others in the community, I was surprised to learn that the TPS Board was planning to hold a special meeting Wednesday so they could go into executive session to discuss this very matter.

And today we learn that yes, indeed, Pecko's contract with TPS will not be renewed.

This puts a lot on the plate of TPS board members and administrators.

They're in the process of doing a comprehensive performance audit and will have multiple recommendations to implement when it is finished.

They have a levy that expires this year and they *need* to have it renewed or they'll face serious budget issues. Their last three requests for additional new money have been rejected overwhelmingly by voters.

They have contract negotiations with their unions coming up.

And now they need to find someone to lead the district - either an interim while they search for a permanent replacement or someone they can find and hire before August when Pecko's term is up.

I don't envy them the tasks before them, but I believe this is a tremendous opportunity for TPS and all of us.

Any new superintendent should be prepared to aggressively implement the recommendations from the performance audit and hopefully save the district - and the public - significant dollars.

The new super should also take a serious look at Pickett Elementary and commit to ending the deplorable and unacceptable 12-year run that school has had in academic emergency status.

The new superintendent should also be someone who understands that the children (not unions or administrators or board members) come first and that the taxpayer needs to see real progress and accountability for the dollars they are spending.

Ideally, TPS will involve the community in the search for a new leader for TPS. They've done a good job of inclusion on the performance audit - maybe they're finally getting the message.

TPS Performance Audit consultant wants to hear from you

On Tuesday, February 5th, from 4:30 to 7 p.m., Evergreen Solutions will hold a public hearing to solicit comments and information regarding the district. Evergreen is the company hired by the school board to do a comprehensive performance audit of TPS.

They want to hear your concerns and opinions on any issue, from food service to transportation to fiscal.

The meetings will be at the Thurgood Marshall Building at 420 E. Manhattan. The entrance is on the Manhattan side of the building.

If you cannot make the meeting, comments can be sent via email to survey@consultevergreen. com.

This is your opportunity to identify both good and bad things about TPS, so don't miss it...and be sure to spread the word!

Is TPS Superintendent Pecko on his way out?

Is Jerome Pecko, the superintendent of Toledo Public Schools on his way out?

Based upon recent comments that, at first, seemed oddly out of place, combined with some more recent criticism, I can't help but wonder if TPS board members are thinking of replacing him.

Pecko was hired by the district on August 1, 2010 and has a three-year contract that is up this summer. Unlike other superintendents who have been prominent in various social and public circles, Pecko has seemed to keep a lower profile.

In the various levy campaigns (none approved by the voters), his role was more supportive than one of leadership.

When Brenda Hill was elected by her fellow board members to be president of the TPS board, she listed reviewing the superintendent contract as one of her priorities, along with passing a levy.

At the time, she said board members would soon begin discussions about extending Pecko's contract or finding a replacement.

While reviewing an expiring contract is clearly a priority for the board, especially when it is the superintendent, I thought the phrasing of her comments was a bit odd. Is that really something you announce as a priority? Was this 'notice' that perhaps the board was less than happy with Pecko's performance, especially given the stinging loss of the new levy request at the ballot box, coupled with the previous two losses?

I shrugged Hill's comment off as just a statement of routine business. But then I attended the January TPS board meeting and heard Lisa Sobecki's comments citing her disappointment with the administration.

Lisa Sobecki expressed concern and dissatisfaction that the matter was brought to the board "at the 11th hour." The deadline for placing issues on the May ballot is Feb. 8.

She questioned the lack of a plan for getting the levy passed, especially in light of early voting which would begin in April, leaving the board only the months of February and March to plan a strategy, raise the money and convince voters of the need for the renewal.

Her tone was definitely one of reprimand and it was clear she was not happy with the way the issue was being handled.

Remember, too, that Hill expressed dissatisfaction at the way the last levy was handled, though she stopped short of blaming anyone directly.

But then I read this Toledo Free Press article and I realized that the dissatisfaction with Pecko's performance is deeper than I first realized:

Sobecki said TPS is not planning far enough into the future.

“I’m not seeing the administration preparing for anything past yesterday. I always look to when the school year starts; that’s when I begin planning for the next year,” she said. “It’s already started. You should already have your plan in place. But if you’re going to run off the seat of your pants and plan this as you go, you’re not going to be successful.

“We teach our students that in the classroom — to be organized and to plan for that test in two weeks. You don’t start studying the night before, and I see my administration studying the night before and cramming, and when you cram for a test, you fail a test. That’s my analogy. And they failed the test Tuesday night.”

The article expounds upon Sobecki's comments during the last board meeting discussion about placing a renewal levy on the ballot (emphasis added):

Sobecki said she felt discouraged that she was given so little time to make the decision and was confused by the cabinet-level administrators’ lack of a plan for what she considered an important decision.

“Our administration knows our board well enough to understand that we like to have plans of actions,” Sobecki said. “We’ve had three operating levies defeated recently. And after every defeat, we looked back and asked why.

“The first time the levy failed, [Superintendent Jerome] Pecko said he wasn’t prepared. He was new on board. The second time it failed: ‘We weren’t prepared.’ The third time, this last November, it failed. I don’t want to go into a fourth time when I’m making a decision on $200,000 of taxpayer money. Without a plan, it’s a crapshoot. If we don’t have a plan, but I’ve asked the voters to support us and it’s defeated, I’ve just taken almost a quarter of a million dollars out of taxpayers’ bank account — our general fund — and flushed it down the toilet.”

“That thoughtlessness of this administration, in my opinion, is done. It has to stop.

“I was extremely disappointed with the administration’s lackadaisical approach of taking board members’ concerns properly, waiting until the eleventh hour and then pressuring the board to make a decision,” Sobecki said.

Sounds like Sobecki is tired of excuses - and she should be, though I disagree on her stance that the district *needs* new money. I think the Performance Audit they're doing should identify cost savings that, hopefully, will eliminate the *need* for even more funds to be taken from the public and shunted to TPS. But I digress...

But it's not just Pecko's inability to pass a new levy request, it's the communication structure as well:

Sobecki said she was also disappointed because cabinet-level administrators sent board members an email at 10 a.m. on a Thursday informing them of a special Finance Committee meeting the next day at 10 a.m.

“That’s not communicating to your board members effectively,” she said. “I had plenty of questions, and I was not afforded the opportunity to go through committee structure to get to the chair or the co-chair of the committee.”

These are not the type of comments one makes when they plan on supporting a renewal of an employment contract.

Perhaps Pecko sees the writing on the wall:

“Quite frankly, after losing on Nov. 6, after the comprehensive campaign that we just went through, I think our brains just went blank while we were trying to reinvigorate and catch up,” Pecko said. “There were a lot of other things we really had to put attention on.”

"...our brains just went blank..." ???

What kind of a comment is that coming from the man in charge of a major public school district with a multi-million-dollar budget?!?

That's not something you say when you want your employment contract renewed.

My prediction: failure to pass three levies (new money all); lack of communication and lack of planning and preparation, coupled with findings/recommendations from the performance audit (PA) will give TPS board members enough data to justify seeking a new superintendent. They can even say that with the PA done, they're looking for a new start and they believe a new leader with the ability to fully implement the next phase of TPS is the best way to go.

Stay tuned....

New TPS president's top priority: new tax levy - not education nor preformance audit

As part of her comments after being elected president of the Toledo Public School Board, Brenda Hill said "you reach a point where you can’t ask for more.”

Was she talking about taxpayers and those who foot the bill for the school system? Was she using this as an introduction to ways the school district could operate more efficiently and live within its means, especially in light of their decision to do a comprehensive performance audit?

Heavens no!

Hill, a former teacher in the TPS system, was talking about teachers.

In a Jan. 4th Blade article (basically repeated on Jan. 7th with a different headline and opening), Hill says her top priority is a passing new school levy this year because:

"...she pointed out that the district has already asked for teachers to give up pay, and said that "you reach a point where you can't ask for more."

When asked if the district had reached that point, she said she didn't know, but said that teacher pay does impact employee morale, and cuts to pay could cause staff to leave the district.

"We can't afford to lose anymore staff," Ms. Hill said."

She also said:

"...she doesn't expect the district to make major changes to operations this year to entice voter support."

Nope - no need to change what we're doing to earn voter support.

It wasn't that property owners don't want to pay more, or that they think they're already paying enough.

In her view, the problem with the failure of the last four levy requests isn't because of bad performance by the schools, nor is it because of questionable financials - like having a $11.22 million carryover while demanding you need more money.

No, according to Hill, it's because they ran a poor campaign with not enough yard signs.

Seriously!

An example of the poor campaign, Ms. Hill said, was what she believes was a dearth of yard signs supporting the levy.

Never mind that the majority of yard signs supporting the levy were illegally on school property or posted - again illegally - in the public right-of-way. Did Hill ever stop to think that perhaps the reason there weren't 'enough' yard signs were because no one wanted to support the levy?

Did she even remotely consider that perhaps it was taxpayers who had reached the point where they couldn't be asked for more?

I don't know what's scarier: that she was elected by the other board members to be president or that, with such failed reasoning, she was actually teaching our kids!

And what about that performance audit? You remember: the comprehensive evaluation of everything the district is doing and how it might save money and perform more effectively and efficiently?

Hill was among the unanimous supporters of entering into a contract with Evergreen Solutions to do a performance audit when the TPS board voted on Dec. 18th.

Did she forget her vote? Or is she already convinced that the audit will sit on a shelf and none of the recommendations will be implemented?

Shouldn't a 'top priority' of a school board president be to see the audit to completion and then oversee implementation of the recommendations with the expectation of saving money so they don't *need* a new levy???

Apparently not.

Of course, this doesn't even touch on the educational aspects of TPS - you know, the entire reason we have a school board in the first place?!?

Well, at least she included "improving graduation rates" as part of her priorities, along with "improving employee morale."

Yeah - she's concerned about improving the morale of the employees by taxing property owners more. And here I thought money didn't buy happiness. What a fool I must be.

Then there is the superintendent issue. Jerome Pecko's contract is up in June. The board will also have to decide whether to extend it or look for a new superintendent.

But getting more money from already tapped-out taxpayers is the priority of the new TPS president.

So much for my cautious optimism.

One step closer to comprehensive performance audit

The TPS Finance Committee approved a resolution recommending a contract with Evergreen Solutions, LLC for a performance audit of the district's operations.

The motion was made by board member Bob Vasquez and passed unanimously. The recommendation will be presented to the full board at their monthly meeting Tuesday (tomorrow) at 5:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the Thurgood Marshall Building, 420 E. Manhattan Blvd.

At their last finance committee meeting, the members heard presentations from three potential providers of a performance audit.

Board member Dr. Cecilia Adams opened this special meeting saying they wanted "to keep the momentum going" and move along toward a performance audit "in a timely manner." She stated that one provider seemed to offer all the items they were looking for in a PA.

She noted that the state auditor would not be able to start their PA until the spring and was hampered, somewhat, by staffing issues. They would have to outsource the instructional and IT portions of any audit, Dr. Adams said.

The Council of the Great City Schools, while providing valuable services to TPS, would take at least six months to complete any PA, she said.

Both would charge about the same amount but neither would be able to do all the things TPS was looking for in a PA.

Dr. Adams noted that Everygreen could - and she made a point of saying that Evergreen's presentation at the last meeting wasn't just a reaction to what the other two entities had already said; all of the items they touted were included in the sample audit they provided to the committee.

Dr. Adams told me after the meeting that she had checked references for Evergreen and all were positive.

Evergreen said they would be able to start a PA "right away," though they noted at during their original presentation that they didn't recommend starting before the end of the year due to the holidays. They were not present at today's meeting.

Dr. Adams also noted that she had been in communication with the other board members to apprise them of the progress the committee was making and she hoped to have their support at the regular board meeting.

Before making the motion to recommend Evergreen, Mr. Vasquez asked the staff and the audience if there was anything missing from the draft detailing areas to be covered. While there were comments about specific aspects of what would be included under the categories, there were no changes to the draft as presented.

Here is the resolution and Exhibit A listing the areas to be included in the PA. If there are items you believe are not covered under the draft, please contact the board members (cadams@tps.org and bvasquez@tps.org) so they can be sure the PA is comprehensive and encompasses all areas of concern.

As a side note, I continue to be encouraged by the actions of the Finance Committee. In the recommendation, they direct that the PA contract should include (emphasis added):

(f) such other terms and conditions, including other major areas of study, as are found to be in the best interest of the District following further consultation with interested stakeholders, including staff, union leadership, interested community members, and as approved by the Superintendent, Treasurer, Board President and District General Counsel.

They want input from the public so be sure to take advantage of their active solicitation of your participation.

If you support their going forward with a comprehensive performance audit, let them know. Too often, elected officials only hear from us when we don't like what they're doing. You must also tell them when they're on the right track.

TPS performance audit update

The Finance Committee of the Toledo Public School board plans to act today on a performance audit for the district. They meet at 8 a.m. and I will attend.

According to sources, it appears they are ready to recommend a private consulting firm to do the performance audit. If so, this is good news. But regardless of who is selected as the auditor, the key will be the scope of work and ensuring it is comprehensive and complete, top to bottom, and doesn't exclude compensation/benefits/working conditions that are covered under collective bargaining agreements.

I'll update you later this morning.

TPS union members stood up by their AFSCME rep

Toledo Public Schools have cafeterias. Cafeterias have workers. Those workers are in a union - specifically the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME. Not news so far - right?

TPS has an ad hoc Food Service committee and this committee, clearly of interest to the AFSCME union and its members, is scheduled to meet at 11 a.m. tomorrow.

Guess who won't be there?

The AFSCME business rep, David Blyth, Jr.

What could be more important than representing the TPS employees? Why Michigan, of course.

I'm on an email list that notifies me of all TPS meeting dates and times. Blyth is too, and he hit 'reply all' when he responded with this note:

I am unable to attend this meeting since I must be at the "Right to work" protest in Lansing Michigan. Sorry, Dave

Yes - instead of staying in Toledo to actually - you know, REPRESENT his members, he's going to the Michigan state capital to protest a bill that passed the Michigan legislature last week and is scheduled to be signed by the governor tomorrow.

Wonder if any of his members will mind being stood up for a useless exercise in media attention - in another state, no less...

Cautious optimism for a comprehensive performance audit at TPS

I attended the Toledo Public School Board's Finance Committee Meeting yesterday and left cautiously optimistic about getting a comprehensive, top-to-bottom performance review for the district.

At the direction of Dr. Cecelia Adams, the chairman of the committee, Treasurer Matt Cleland reached out to several of us who have been vocal about the issue and invited us to attend the meeting to hear presentations from three entities under consideration for the performance audit.

The Council of the Great City Schools, the State Auditor and Evergreen Solutions, LLC, were the presenters.

I've detailed my concerns about CGCS and nothing in their comments yesterday changed my mind.

TPS pays dues to belong to CGCS and participates in their board. Clearly, this presents a conflict of interest to hire a group that you belong to as an evaluator of your performance. Doing his presentation via phone, Michael Casserly, the Executive Director, addressed this concern, saying that prior reports they've done are very objective.

"I encourage people to look at any reports done over the years to see that they are extremely candid," he said.

Casserly described their approach as "reviews" of specific areas of function such as budget and finance, transportation, food services, or IT systems. While cost depends upon scope, he estimated roughly $30,000 per review with a 'broad review' typically costing around $100,000.

He emphasized that the costs are only for travel, hotel, meals and other expenses because the individuals used on the different subject teams are already employed in various senior urban school positions.

Casserly said they do not use a template for their reviews but do apply best practices and look at the "difference between why some schools do better than others and why reforms ... aren't getting the traction necessary."

In response to a question about union contracts Casserly replied with a very disturbing answer. "Sometimes we look at collective bargaining agreements if we think it has an impact on the instructional or operational review scope." He added that they will look at contracts "if asked."

He said they don't do follow up after the reviews, but they can refer the district to others who can help with implementation of the recommendations.

Board member Bob Vasquez asked if the Council had worked with other entities. For example, had CGCS done a review of transportation while another entity did a review of budget and finance? Casserly said they had, but emphasized that entities like states who do financial audits are usually looking at compliance with various laws and regulations and that having two groups pursuing the same goal but on two separate paths often takes up staff time.

My impression is that he was referring to a yearly financial audit and not a performance audit like our State Auditor offers.

Casserly explained the "main job is to identify and look at underlying structures and strategies that help or impede the results" the district is trying to achieve. He had no details about cost savings obtained but estimated between $2 million and $20 million in operational efficiencies.

The Auditor of State presentation was more of an overview of the performance audit services they offer. They look at all aspects of the operation with a focus on "skinnying down government." They use Lean Six Sigma and best practices, comparing an entity to public and private services when applicable. They emphasized that what works in one place might not be good in another.

The Auditor's average return is $23 in savings for every $1 spent on the audit. Their PAs cost around $100,000, depending on scope but they do have a revolving loan fund that can advance the district the cost of the audit, so long as it is repaid within one year of the audit completion. Using the LEAP fund, as it's called, allows districts and other entities to have time to implement recommendations and acquire the savings to pay for the audit.

The report they do will note any recommendations that are subject to labor contracts and negotiation so that everyone reading the report will have realistic expectations regarding the implementation of those recommendations.

Evergreen Solutions had not been invited to present. They'd heard about the discussion of a performance audit and contacted the board, asking to present their services. That companies specializing in school performance audits had not been contacted in advance was very disconcerting, but the presentation was top-notch.

Dr. Linda Recio, president of the firm, gave the most professional and comprehensive presentation of the methodology, tools and process they would employ in doing a performance audit.

Their PA team consists of individuals with extensive background in education and prior service in leadership positions in school structures. "We've been where you are," she said, but are now full-time consultants who can be completely objective in evaluating and making recommendations. She said that when they look at school budgets, they don't just bring in a former school treasurer, but a former school treasurer who is also a CPA.

She emphasized their knowledge of various state and federal laws to ensure that all recommendations are in compliance with mandates and requirements.

She brought a copy of the model structure guidebook they use for their PAs as well as a copy of the final report they did for a Virginia district. She said she thought it was important for everyone to see a sample of their work and the product they would receive.

Recio emphasized the constant, web-based interaction with both internal and external stakeholders; their hands-on approach which includes actually riding the bus and eating in the cafeteria; and their interview techniques.

"How do you hold yourself accountable for how you're spending public dollars," she asked, explaining that a comprehensive, top-to-bottom performance audit is key.

She said she would prefer to wait until after the first of the year to start any PA because she didn't think between Thanksgiving and Christmas was a good time to get people to focus on the tasks necessary. She said they could do their comprehensive PA in three months, which is half the time of other estimates.

Recio also said they do not charge extra or refer the district to others to help with the implementation of their recommendations. They provide not just recommendations, but detailed plans and strategies for how to implement their suggestions.

She estimated the cost of a 'the works' audit at "no more than $150,000, probably less" and said the audit of the Virginia school district, similar in size to Toledo, was just under $150,000.

In response to a question she noted that they've done audits of districts at the request of various states and that states have found 85-90% implementation rates. She also said the return on investment for their audits was $193 in savings for every $1 of audit costs.

My impressions:

* Dr. Adams does a very good job running a meeting. She was firm, but kind, in how she praised the progress staff was making on a goal of eliminating "confirming purchase orders" while insisting on further identifying the problems resulting in having them still on the agenda. (These are purchase orders that have been issued AFTER the action or service has been performed and they were a finding on the TPS 2011 audit.)

Her questions to the presenters were thoughtful, detailed and caught a couple of questionable statements that were made.

* Bob Vasquez was clearly thinking 'outside the box' (though he said at one point that he really didn't like that term) as he asked about having the presenters work together - perhaps using one to focus on financial aspects and another to focus on instructional aspects.

* Both Adams and Vasquez clarified that their resolution to pursue a contract with CGCS was not a commitment to hiring them for a performance audit - that a final decision on who will do the audit and the scope of the audit had not yet been finalized. They called on Keith Wilkowski, legal counsel to the board, to verify that was the case.

* Despite saying that they'd done more non-instructional audits than instructional ones, my impression of CGCS is that they are more likely to emphasize and focus on the instructional side of the operation.

My previous concerns about them still stand and I now have more. If I understood correctly, they use current employees in member schools to do the PAs. This pulls those individuals away from their regular duties and, while they are probably good people with good skills, they are more of a peer review rather than independent experts. Would they be more like co-workers than evaluators?

* The State Auditor was my preference prior to this meeting. I do believe they can do an excellent and comprehensive job of evaluating the district (both instructional and operational), but they are limited in their ability to help TPS in the implementation stage. This is not from a lack of desire to see success, but more from the structure of state government and their duties and limitations within that structure.

* Evergreen was the best of the three presentations and gave the best options to the district. They - or a firm like them - is now my preference, though their initiative in reaching out to the district to offer their services moves them to the top of the list.

Recio even had some free advice for the board for after the audit: hold quarterly meetings with the public where you share your progress on each of the recommendations. She said they provide a spreadsheet template boards can use to show the original recommendation, any modifications, percentage completed, savings achieved as well as other items the board might want to track.

I thought this was an excellent idea that would demonstrate how the board is following through and I hope they do that regardless of who is selected to do the PA.

* At one point Vasquez and Adams asked about needing property tax levies in the future. Evergreen noted that they are not a PR firm, but that their clients had successfully used the PA and the implementation of the recommendations in their efforts to educate the public about the finances of the districts. Vasquez wondered if the public would support a levy request in the future.

In response, John Mc Avoy, with the Northwest Ohio Conservative Coalition, told the board members that NWOCC was not opposed to school property tax levies in general, but they want to be sure entities requesting funds truly need them and are already using existing funds in the best possible manner. He shared that he, personally, decided to support the Lake School District levy after seeing their performance audit and the progress they were making as a result.

I told the board that support for future levies was never guaranteed, but that they couldn't spend three or six months doing an audit and then, two months later, ask for a new levy. I told them if they do the top-to-bottom, comprehensive, 'the works' audit, spend a year holding regular meetings showing how they're implementing the recommendations and achieving the targeting savings, and then they find they still need money, even I would probably support a levy.

But the key will be in demonstrating to the public that they are following through.

I also believe that if they do such an audit, they might not need a new levy for an extended period of time.

* Overall, I thought this was a very productive meeting and while I'm cautiously optimistic about the PA, I still have some questions:

- If they want to go with an outside consulting firm (like Evergreen), do they have to issue an RFP and/or go out to bid for the project? I don't think they have to if they use a CGCS or the state auditor.

- Are there board members who are committed to using CGCS and will find a way to do so regardless of better options? I didn't think they were the better choice to begin with and am even more convinced of this now.

- Will the openness I saw from two board members at the finance committee meeting carry over into regular board meetings and move TPS toward a comprehensive performance audit?

- As board president Lisa Sobecki asked previously, will they have the will to implement any recommendations they get?

- Will the TPS unions, especially the teachers and administrators, embrace the process and the outcome?

The ball is not really in the board's court right now - it's in ours. We need to continue to pressure them to stay on this path and to help them make good decisions along the way.

The next board meeting is Tuesday, December 18, at 5:30 p.m. It's in the Board Room at the Thurgood Marshall Building at 420 E. Manhattan Boulevard in Toledo.

Help TPS make the right choice on a performance audit

The Toledo Public School board is making a lot of noise about doing a performance audit... finally!

In May I suggested they do a performance audit PRIOR to putting a new or increased tax levy on the ballot.

My thinking was, as usual, very logical: do a performance audit and, based upon the recommendations, see whether or not TPS even *needs* more money. Many school systems in the state saw significant yearly savings, in addition to millions in one-time savings, when they implemented the recommendations from an Auditor of State performance audit review.

Had TPS started in May to pursue this approach, they would be near the completion of the audit and would have a better understanding of any financial needs going forward. They also would have had valid justification for any requested increase in taxes and they could have put that request on the ballot in 2013.

It is critical to note that they also had an $11.22 million carryover so they weren't facing any emergency in terms of funding nor did they need to make cuts in spending in this school year.

Of course, their last financial audit was proof enough that they don't handle public monies well (see here, here and here - yes, it took three very long posts to share the miserable report), so a performance audit and a commitment to implement the recommendations would have gone a long way to regaining public trust.

But they didn't do that. They pushed forward with a 4.9 mill levy because they wanted "a cushion" so they wouldn't have to "start cutting."

But their levy lost.

So, like they did in 2010 after the failure of levy requests at both the primary and general election, they're again talking about doing a performance audit. But they're going to need your help to get it right.

You see, they're not looking at a State Auditor performance audit - they're pursuing a contract with the Council of Great City Schools, an organization of public schools devoted to promoting urban education.

Not only are they turning to a group that they pay dues to, they're going to compare their performance with other large public school districts. Of course, there's nothing to say that the other public school systems are being run effectively, efficiently or at the least cost to taxpayers, so what is the point of comparing TPS practices to them?!?

The basic difference between using CGCS and the state auditor is that one promotes the interests of public schools and the other promotes the interests of the taxpayers.

Who do you really think will do a better job of evaluating every aspect of TPS operations?

Several other points to remember:

* the cost for either organization is basically the same, but the State Auditor offers payment options and financial assistance; the CGSC does not.

* CGCS has no experience doing comprehensive audits - they focus primarily on educational aspects and outcomes, not on such things as alternative options for costs.

* CGCS is not an 'independent' organization - they are a biased group to which TPS belongs.

So who and what is the Council of Great City Schools? Let's take a look.

"The philosophy of the classroom today will be the philosophy of government tomorrow." ~ Abraham Lincoln

This is their mission:

It is the special mission of America’s urban public schools to educate the nation’s most diverse student body to the highest academic standards and prepare them to contribute to our democracy and the global community.

That should stop TPS right there.

We are a REPUBLIC! We are not a democracy. The fact that this organization - devoted to educating our youth - doesn't understand that basic concept should disqualify them right out of the gate!

COMMON CORE

They support and promote the Common Core State Standards.

I've not completed my research on Common Core, but everything I'm reading so far makes me want to run away from it - screaming.

Basically, Common Core is a national set of educational standards mandated by the federal government and pushed to the local level. It removes local control over multiple aspects of education and dictates what students will learn and how.

It also appears to be very costly in terms of implementation and on-going costs - about $16 billion or so. (Just the thing we need for TPS: more costs to be paid by increased property tax levies.)

You've probably not heard much about Common Core, so a good place to start is American Principles in Action and their five part video on the subject.

Heritage Foundation has a short video that explains how these standards will trump local control and what parents and teachers believe is in the best interest of the children.



Additionally, here are some bullet points about Common Core - from Truth in American Education:

* requires transferring, to the federal government, decisions about educational content and standards and removing such decisions from parents, local districts and even states. Education is supposed to be a state issue, not a federal one.

* local districts must provide the funds for implementation, including for technology, equipment, network capacity, new books and materials and related personnel. The implementation costs are exorbitant - and there is no discussion about the ability of local districts to pay for these additional costs.

* adopting the non-public domain, privately owned copyrighted Common Core State Standards means that everyone must comply 100%. Basically, it's all or nothing though states can add their own standards, so long as those standards are 15% or less of the requirements. Talk about conforming to the lowest common denominator.

* assessment testing will "include annual multiple administration of standardized tests to students that, as the Department of Education notes, “could replace already existing tests, such as interim assessments that are in common use in many classrooms today.”

* will "increase the frequency of standardized tests, diminish the importance of traditional classroom tests, and further marginalize the role of parents and teachers."

Who is writing these standards and curriculum? "Linda Darling-Hammond, a radical left-wing educator and close colleague of William “Bill” Ayers, the former leader of the communist terrorist Weather Underground who became a professor of education and friend of Obama’s."

As Mary Grabar summarizes:

Common Core is part of an effort to implement regionalism, the replacement of local governments by regional boards of federally appointed bureaucrats, who in turn are beholden to international bodies. Regionalism will eliminate the freedom parents now have in choosing neighborhoods with good schools because tax funds will be distributed equally. There will be no escape in home schooling or private schools either, because the curriculum will follow national tests. Students will be tracked through mandatory state records that will then be accessible to Washington bureaucrats. Ultimately, all students will be subject to education mandates implemented by Obama’s radical cronies.

Grabar also wrote:

Although its proponents claim that Common Core increases academic rigor, education professor Sandra Stotsky — a major force behind Massachusetts’ previously high standards — refused to sign off on Common Core, referring to its “empty skill sets.” Others have noted the emphasis on the lowering of standards that is necessary for the goal of “closing the achievement gap.”

In my recent report, I added to the discussion by looking at some of the Common Core lessons now being peddled by school districts and freelance Common Core entrepreneurs. Among these materials was a horrendous “Common Core-compliant” book titled Master of Deceit: J. Edgar Hoover and America in the Age of Lies by professor Marc Aronson. Extremely manipulative, historically inaccurate, and age-inappropriate for middle school students, Aronson’s book is a continuation of the Soviet disinformation campaign of diverting attention about the communist threat to J. Edgar Hoover’s alleged homosexuality. Sadly, it is these kinds of materials – tracts that meet the new focus on “informational text” — that school districts are now forced to buy. Teachers, professors, and freelance writers who had previously resisted standards now see a bonanza, as schools replace traditional literary works with books about such subjects as diamonds, snakes, New York City gangs, public artists, and yes, Justin Bieber.

Common Core sounds good on the surface: every school teaches the exact same thing to every child. As I was beginning my research on the issue, I reached out to several blogger friends who have experience in the area. Recognizing just how bad Common Core is, Michelle Malkin responded, "This is my number one policy issue for the next year."

You'll hear more about this, I'm sure, especially since Ohio has signed on to the program. There is still time to stop it. But back to CGCS and TPS:

Do you really think that a group dedicated to promoting Common Core Standards is going to ignore them in doing a performance audit and making recommendations about what TPS should do?

I don't. In fact, since that is one of CGCS's core missions, I expect it will be the primary focus of any audit they may do.

PERFORMANCE AUDIT MEASUREMENTS

CGCS has several research publications that look at various performance measurements. It's called the Performance Measurement and Benchmarking Project.

This year's report includes data from 61 of the Council's 67-member districts (91 percent) and provides a fully tested set of Power Indicators that superintendents and school boards can use to assess the overall performance of their district's business operations. It also provides a set of what we call Essential Few Measures that, along with the Power Indicators, can be used by chief executives to assess the performance of individual departments and operations.

Note the wording: "indicators that superintendents and school boards can use to assess ... their business operations."

If they already provide these measurement for free (report is downloadable to anyone), why would we pay them anything at all?

Why doesn't the board just direct the staff to apply the indicators to current practices and get their own assessment?

And if these reports and indicators have been available from CGCS since 2009, why hasn't TPS already used them to evaluate their operations???

Of course, as I mentioned earlier, this is just comparing TPS to other large districts. It will only tell us how TPS stands in relation to such districts as Atlanta, Washington DC, New York, New Orleans and Detroit. Are these schools districts indicative of the performance we want from TPS?

Additionally, any so-called audit by CGCS won't tell us how to use existing and limited dollars to best educate our kids.

Do you think they will even touch on union contract terms?

BOTTOM LINE

TPS needs to contract with the Auditor of State for their performance audit. You need to contact all the school board members and demand this of them. They are your employees - they work for you. You get to direct them and their actions, not the other way around.

Here is the contact page. Go there now and send all board members an email and tell then you want an unbiased, objective, taxpayer focused performance audit done by the Auditor of State.

Let me repeat that:

Here is the contact page. Go there now and send all board members an email and tell then you want an unbiased, objective, taxpayer focused performance audit done by the Auditor of State.

Keep contacting them, either by email or phone calls (419-671-8200) until you get the answer you want.

The only way to get them to do a meaningful performance audit is to bring enough public pressure to bear so that they will make the right decision. They've already lost one levy and they have another up for renewal next year. They threaten us with loss of educational opportunities for our kids when they want more money - threaten them with active opposition to their existing funding if they don't comply.

Then, after they agree that a state performance audit is the right way to go, hold their feet to the fire to implement the recommendations.

As Lisa Sobecki asked:

“Once it's done and we made that investment, is the board going to have the will to actually enact what was put forward in the performance audit?”

They will if we make them.

2012 Election Reflections Part 2: what went right

Yesterday I covered Part 1, What Went Wrong, of my three-part speech to the Fallen Timbers Republican Club. Today is Part 2: what went right. Tomorrow is Part 3: Where do we go from here?


On a national level, Michelle Malkin had a great list of things that went right for Republicans and conservatives on election. There's no need to re-invent the wheel, so here are a few of the items she listed:

1) Republicans retained control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
2) Voters in Alabama, Montana, and Wyoming all passed measures limiting Obamacare.
3) Tea Party candidate Ted Cruz, one of the conservative movement’s brightest rising stars, overcame establishment GOP opposition to clinch a U.S. Senate victory in Texas.
4) Despite entrenched teachers’ union opposition, a charter school initiative in Washington state triumphed.
5) Despite entrenched Big Labor support, a radical collective bargaining power grab in Michigan failed.
6) North Carolina Republicans claimed the governor’s office, congressional gains, and control of the state’s general assembly.
7) Paul Ryan will return to Congress after winning re-election and continue to carry the torch for entitlement reform and budget discipline.
8) Across the country, Republicans reached a post-2000 record number of gubernatorial victories. In fact, we now hold 60% of state governorships.

Another important things to note is that Obama got fewer votes than he did in 2008 (as of the time of the speech). We should also be aware that the ‘obstructionist’ House of Representatives is still in Republican control, even after opposing Obamacare, tax hikes and additional spending. This is a major win and it carries a message that even if Americans want Obama to remain president, they still want Republicans to oppose many of the terrible ideas Obama has put forth.

And, as Malkin wrote, "Conservatives who were devastated by the national election results demonstrated how to lose with dignity and grace."

In Ohio, State Issue 2 was defeated and we maintained control of state government.

LOCALLY:

1) TPS new levy failed – though they have another levy due for renewal next year and they may do what many did this year which is make it a renewal and an additional tax at the same time. But it only lost by 4,241 votes - not as much as it should have.

2) Toledo Parks and Recreation levy failed – not so much due to any organized opposition or understanding of the financial implications but primarily because Mike Bell gave pay raises to his administrators. The margin was 8,500 votes.

3) Imagination Station – after being voted down 3 times, they finally succeeded in getting a levy passed. This was a straight renewal and it lost by 2,075 votes – though they hope that provisional and late absentee ballots will make up the difference.

4) The Northwest Ohio Conservative Coalition took a strong stand and opposed the seven levies on the Toledo ballot. They also had significant wins in terms of equal access, setting the stage for the future. You can read the details here and here.

5) Individuals were the big winners – they took the initiative and didn’t rely upon the party to lead. They've moved from protesters to activists and that bodes well for our future and represents the truest demonstration of our conservative ideals.

Next: Part 3: Where do we go from here?

Election coverage and NO on all levies

I'll be participating in some upcoming election coverage and wanted to let you know, so you can - hopefully - tune in and join us.

First, today at 4 p.m. Eastern I'll join my friend and fellow blogger, Duane Lester (All American Blogger) for a discussion on Ohio on Liberty News Live.

Tomorrow, I'll be joining my friend and radio host Tony Katz for Citizen Watchdog live coverage of election day activities across the nation. But it isn't just a bunch of people talking at you:

Instead of being talked at, we invite you to join the conversation, along with thousands of citizens just like you. Your participation, tips, and insights will help with the analysis. You can tweet at us at @WatchdogWire, use the hash tag #ElectionWatch, send us an e-mail at CitizenWatchdog@franklincenterhq.org or participate in our live-chat function.

Our host, Tony Katz, will interview the following experts live:

• Michelle Malkin, Political commentator and author
• Dana Loesch, Talk radio host
• Jason Stverak, Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity
• Dean Clancy, FreedomWorks
• Jennifer Stefano, AFP State Director and FOX News Commentator

So don’t feel stuck with MSM election coverage. Watch with your fellow citizens starting at 6 pm ET and get the latest breaking news from around the country in real time -- no delays, no filters!

Register here to participate: http://webinars.watchdogwire.com/

Lastly, in case you've not yet decided how you will vote on any of the levy issues, please read this and remember your friends and neighbors who are out of work, on food stamps, having trouble paying their mortgages or, heaven forbid, already in foreclosure.

The five county-wide and two City of Toledo levies will suck $54.6 million out of the wallets of residents - $45.3 million of it NEW taxation.

Will your parents or grandparents who are retired and on fixed incomes end up having to choose between paying these additional taxes or paying for their medicines? A $300 a year increase in taxation (for a $100,000 home) has to be taken from somewhere - what will they choose to give up so they don't lose their home?

Because these are property taxes, the inability to pay these new taxes will result in the loss of a home. Are any of these 'quality of life' levies really worth a family losing their home over?

And do any of them really deserve a 45%, 67% or even an 85% increase? Did YOU get that kind of increase this year?

Just say NO.

The sweet deals that fund the Library and TPS levy campaigns

This is the first post taking a look at the sources of campaign funding for various property tax levy requests that are on the Nov. 6th ballot.


I previously documented donations to the 2010 Toledo Public Schools levies (here and here) and found that, unlike my expectations, businesses, not unions, were the major contributors.

Businesses, most of which are vendors of the school system (direct recipients of the tax dollars they seek to raise) and many which will never pay the tax themselves because of where they are located, want you to pay more so they can have access to the additional funds TPS will have to spend.

This year is no different.

Of the $53,196.95 raised and reported on the Committee for Schools pre-general campaign finance report, 60 percent comes from vendors of the school district.

When you think about it, it makes sense. If the school district has more money, it can pay these companies for more things. Unions have donated $12,000 through Oct. 17, the last day of the reporting period.

The largest contributor is the district’s law firm, Marshall & Melhorn, who gave the campaign $10,000. Four attorneys with the firm, including three who have represented TPS, each gave $500. That’s not bad considering that TPS has paid them $243,823.47 through September this year, according to documents on the TPS website.

Other large contributors included ProMedica, Buckeye Telesystems, Rice Securities and Squire Sanders, along with construction firms handling the school building program.

What is missing, so far, is a donation from the Toledo Federation of Teachers, the union representing teachers in the district.

Another interesting fact about the Committee for Schools report is the amount of donations coming from outside the city of Toledo. Nearly 52 percent comes from people who do not have a Toledo address on the campaign finance report.

They’re not going to pay the proposed tax, but they’re helping to pass a levy so others will.

What a deal!

But what about the library?

The Toledo-Lucas County Public Library has a sweet little system set up.

Their pre-general campaign finance report shows they've raised over $200,000 for this levy campaign. Added to the funds they carried over from their last levy, they have over a quarter of a million dollars to spend trying to convince you to give them a 45% raise in their income.

What's the sweet set-up used to raise that money?

They have a non-profit Library Legacy Foundation which lists such donors as the City of Toledo, the City of Maumee and Lucas County, along with individuals and businesses. This non-profit Foundation made a $40,000 donation to the levy committee.

Vendors also contributed, as did a few individuals, but the largest donations came from the individual branch Friends of the Library organizations.

Friends of the Library is a nonprofit organization that encourages, promotes and supports the ongoing development and use of the Toledo-Lucas County Public Library. Friends of the Library offer support for:

* Brown Bag Concerts
* Authors! Authors!
* Summer Reading Club Programs
* Local branch activities
* Levy Campaigns

Each branch has their own group and they raise money for the organizations through memberships and book sales.

Since they're non-profits, their financials are not public records available for inspection, but they must be doing well for them to contribute $104,000 to the levy campaign.

Sanger Branch FOL donated a whopping $30,000. Kent Branch made two donations of $600 each, but the second $600 check had to be returned due to insufficient funds.

This means that the Kent Branch FOL zeroed out their account to help raise your taxes, instead of saving that money for local branch activities and their summer reading club.

Many people belong to the Friends of the Library chapters because they believe it's a way to help supplement the individual branch activities and provide funds - above and beyond the public funding the library gets - for library purposes. Do you think every FOL member realizes that their contributions are used to help raise their property tax bill?

I would love to compare the amount of money spent on the levy versus the amount of money spent on actual services or items for the branches, but since these are non-profits, their books are not public records.

That's not all. Online purchases also go to support raising your taxes. The library transferred $50,000 from an "Internet Sales Account" to the levy campaign.

All together, 93% of the money raised for this levy came from the non-profit organizations established by the library.

I can't help but wonder: Why don't they use that money and their fundraising techniques for the library instead of for a levy campaign? If they did, maybe they wouldn't need a 45% increase in income.



Tomorrow: Imagination Station and Toledo Parks and Recreation levies

Just say NO to property tax levies - all of them!

Did you - or anyone you know - get an 85% increase in income this year?

How about a 67% increase? No?

Well, what about a paltry 45% increase?

I didn't think so. So why should public agencies?

Those are the percentage increases for three levies on the ballot November 6th.

The Toledo-Lucas County Public Library has a 2.0 mill levy and they want to renew that and add .9 mills. That's a 45% increase in income they're asking for - out of your pockets.

By the way - the Library's 2 mill levy gives them as much money as the county gets in property taxes. Got that? The library is already getting the same amount as county government and they want more - and they want this amount of funding each year for the next five years.

The Mental Health and Recovery Services board is asking for a new 1 mill levy. They already have a 1.5 mill levy so this is a second levy and it represents a 67% increase in income for them - coming from your wallet. This is a 10-year levy, so you wouldn't have a chance to modify it for a decade.

Children Services Board is the worst. They have a 1 mill levy and they want to increase it to 1.85 mills - an 85% increase. This is their second levy. They have a 1.4 mill levy that voters approved last year. Oh - and did you know they have $13,411,696 in their reserve fund???

Yep...sitting on millions and they want you to vote to give them 85% more than they're already getting from this levy. In this economy, that's shameful.

The MetroParks isn't any better. They are asking for a new .9 mill levy that would be in place for 10 years. Ten years ago, they asked for a .3 mill levy to purchase additional property. Voters gave them that levy, but many who opposed it, including me, said it would only lead to requests for even more money in the future because any new land purchased would need to be maintained and turned into parkland.

No, we were told, that wouldn't happen. They lied because here they are, asking for a new .9 mill operating levy to - you guessed it - pay for the administration of all the new land they now have.

Of course, these levies are only asking for 'pennies a day' compared to the City of Toledo and Toledo Public Schools, who want to add brand new levies to their income.

The city wants a 1 mill levy to fund Parks and Recreation, because they just don't have enough money and so all of you, who also don't have enough money, must pay more.

Remember back in the spring when council voted to install additional red-light and speed cameras? Do you also remember that the projected $320,000 revenue from those cameras was supposed to go to parks? You don't? Well, it's true.

But when council voted to put the levy on the ballot, no one even raised the point or questioned what happened to all that revenue money. No - they just want more, trying to justify a new tax on the poor and middle class as somehow being in our best interest because it will reduce youth violence, increase our quality of life and help our seniors. Oh - and it's "for the children."

Wouldn't your quality of life be better if you could actually keep the money you earn instead of being forced, by majority rule, to turn it over to government?

Besides, if the city has a $900,000 carryover and the mayor can afford to give raises totaling $295,000 a year (without counting pensions, taxes, etc...), do they really need a new levy that will be in place for a decade - or longer if the temporary 3/4% income tax is any example?

Then there is the TPS levy - a brand new 4.9 mill, 10-year levy. Where should I begin on that?

Let's start with reminding you that they already collect 64.39 mills!

I could remind you about their atrocious audit that no one in the main stream media covered. They were cited for 18 instances of material weaknesses, significant deficiencies, non-compliance and a finding for recovery.

Their management letter was even worse with citations for spending money without appropriating it and for appropriating money without first verifying they had any to appropriate. They failed to keep proper inventories not just of district property but of property purchased with grand funds. They also failed to follow their own reimbursement policies and reimbursed monies they shouldn't have - and without receipts. In fact, the management letter was so bad that it took me two blog posts to cover it! (you can see them here and here)

They could have done a performance audit before asking for more money, but they didn't. Other schools in the state (and many governmental jurisdictions) have found millions of yearly savings by doing performance audits. But not TPS. In August, they said there were pursuing it and an announcement would be made soon. However, emails to various board members asking for an update on their progress toward a performance audit have gone unanswered.

And in the midst of all of this, their school report card went down - with Pickett Elementary entering its 13th year in academic emergency. Every citizen should be outraged about Pickett!

Besides, with an $11.22 million carryover, they don't even need a levy this year. They could have removed the levy from the ballot, done the performance audit and, after implementing the recommendations, re-evaluated their financial needs and, if still necessary, asked for a levy then.

Instead, TPS wants a cushion so they don't have to cut their spending. Well, I'd like a cushion, too. Wouldn't you? Instead, you're looking at a giving TPS another $13.3 million a year for the next 10 years.

Imagination Station "is only" asking for renewal of their existing .17 mill levy. Voters rejected them three times and then their levy passed. A non-profit entity shouldn't be on the public dole, no matter how 'valuable' you think they are. They should be self-supporting - not taking money out of your pocket, preventing you from spending those dollars on your priorities.

These seven levies represent an increase of $45.3 million in taxation. All totaled, they take $54.6 million out of the pockets of residents.

And don't forget, money going to government really isn't economic growth, no matter what anyone tells you.

The worst part is that these are property taxes, which means that if you don't pay them, you can lose your home. With our high unemployment, continuing foreclosures and general economic malaise, can we really afford to tell friends, family and neighbors that they need to pay $45.3 million more???

As many Lucas County township elected officials recently asked:

“Is (any) levy so important that someone should lose their home if they cannot afford to pay it?”

None of these levies even remotely qualify.

This is not to say that they aren't good organizations doing good things. And opposition to increasing the amount of money they get doesn't mean you hate kids, hate the mentally ill, are racist, unkind, greedy, stingy, uncaring, etc... etc... etc... It just means you want them to live within their current means - just like you do.

Besides, if you really want to support the levies, there's nothing preventing you from going to the Auditor's AREIS website, looking up your own property and, under the data column, checking how much you'd pay if the levies passed and then writing a check to the organizations for that amount. Nope - nothing in the world. In fact, it's probably a better way to go.

But I bet you won't.

And that alone is another reason to vote NO on

* Issue 5 Toledo Parks and Recreation
* Issue 20 Toledo Public Schools
* Issue 21 MetroParks
* Issue 23 Library
* Issue 24 Mental Health & Recovery Services
* Issue 25 Children Services Board
* Issue 26 Imagination Station