Tuesday May 5, 2015
Jump to content
Huh? I see nothing of what you are writing about.
Very thoughtful comment by Judi Lance. She is correct. Part of the problem is teachers are reluctant to communicate with parents. That is universal. Also, the old factory model of education, 6 classes a day, students lined up in rows, really detracts from good sound educational practice. For example, in a six period day, teachers typically teach 5 classes. An English teacher may average 30 in each of the classes and have 150 students they are responsible for keeping track of it. Close to impossible to develop the needed relationship with parents concerning their student. If Payson High School instituted a block schedule where each semester, staff is responsible for no more than 100 students with a 90 minute prep, then the opportunity and the expectation should be teachers will contact parents of struggling students. Not foolproof but helpful for communication with parents. The traditional schedule is, as Judi says, a shuffle in and shuffle out with little or no relationship building occurring. This lack of relationship adds to a miserable failure rate.
In the Payson Roundup "Our View" of January 25, 2011, the editorial speaks to the great progress that PHS made in having failures decline. They discuss a 14% drop but a number between 20 and 25% still failed. That story is here: http://www.paysonroundup.com/news/201...
Today, the editorial takes a harsher view of the failure rate at PHS. "But based on the class-failure rates, it looks like if the administration is pressuring teachers to pass students no matter what — it’s not working. Either that or the failure rate ought to be much higher than 27 percent and we’ve got a brain-crushing problem on our hands." http://www.paysonroundup.com/news/201...
It appears that instead of moving forward the last two years of the regime change, the school is going backwards. The original story from January 25, 2011 is here: http://www.paysonroundup.com/news/201...
Clearly there currently is a "Reign of Terror" in the district where staff is afraid to be identified. In a word, "shameful". Our View states: "So you can lead a teacher to a ruberic — but you can’t make it fair unless you’re willing to level with teachers and parents and stick to clear criteria that aren’t just an excuse to get rid of someone you don’t happen to like." This is the same Our View group that wrote a glowing editorial about the previous Superintendent, yet he is the very one who put this ridiculous "rubric" into play with board approval.
One can draw their own conclusions. I have drawn my conclusion. Without any buy in from students who clearly are disengaged with the school, there will not be any forward progress. No wonder Payson Education Center, headed by a previous discarded Payson School District administrator, is rapidly increasing enrollment. From approximately 25 students several years ago to over 60 students last year. At 4k to 5k per student in state aid, clearly their success is part of PUSD's downfall.
In Coach Swartwood's case, his leaving for extracurricular activities will be no different then previous coaches. I am thinking that he did coach last year and had to leave for games prior to end of day at the school. When staff leaves, they often cover that internally. Since he is a certified teacher, he gets his salary plus a coaching stipend. That is the way all coaches are paid. Of course in Payson they have to raise money for their salaries through "Credit for Kids" to pay their coaching salary. I am unaware of any coach receiving travel pay due to traveling from any school to the high school.
You are right, with this three week coach quitting, Coach Swartwood has a big mess to clean up and to pull off a camp of that magnitude has got to be stressful. As I have previously stated, I for one am glad he is willing to take on the responsibility. Otherwise it would be an even bigger mess with disastrous consequences.
Pat, I have no idea who recommended the coach of three weeks for hiring and the same one who suddenly resigns for "health reasons". Typically the person who is in charge of the school makes the recommendations for hiring.
In the current hiring of a football coach, the athletic director would probably make the recommendation with approval from the principal or maybe the previous principal. Prospective coaches are usually interviewed by the AD and some form of committee. In this case, since the previous coach up and quit, I would think that due to the urgency of hiring the AD would make that recommendation and it would be perfectly ok to do so. Then the board has the final say by either approving or disapproving the recommendation. Hope that kind of helps.
Jake was already on staff as a certified teacher at JRE. He is the logical choice.
I would have no idea who recommended the guy who develops "health issues" that prevented him from coaching after a three week stint. The current AD was not the AD at that time so somebody from administration recommended his hiring to the board. Your guess would probably be better then mine. There is reason to believe that there is more to the story then what the previous coach is saying. After all who would develop "heath issues" after immediately accepting the position? Not making light but "personal", "family", or "health" reasons seems to be the way around other reasons for quitting.
That is not to distract from Coach Swartwood and Payson should be glad he was willing to step in to what looks to be a difficult situation.
Well Pat, seems like a conspiracy theory will be developing on why a new coach lasted for approximately one month and abruptly resigned. Clearly something is amiss if a guy takes the job and quits while the AD is out to sea and the new principal is in Japan. It surely doesn't bode well for the persons responsible for hiring him in the first place.
No matter what, the team needs a coach. When it comes to who is left on staff that has some interest in coaching and certified as a teacher, Jake is the logical choice. In his defense, I'm sure he would have preferred being an assistant for a longer period of time. I'm glad he has agreed to do the job since it will not be easy.
I would believe that the new AD managed to get in contact with and offer the job to Coach Swartwood. It is imperative that they have someone at the helm and now. What a tough position to be placed in. So go get 'em Jake.
Was it an editorial or a love letter? Too funny.
John, thanks for an interesting read. At one time the Town of Payson had proposed helping the school board broadcast meetings. This was when Fred Carpenter was the town manager. I brought that idea to several school board members who were adamantly opposed to that form of transparency that the editorial is suggesting.
In lies the problem when they meet with the superintendent prior to the meeting individually or sometimes in groups of two. The newest board member is accurate on public perception and I sure believe that many votes have not been above board whereas the paper gives them the benefit of the doubt. Public business should be done and completely discussed in the public with the opportunity for the public to participate. Major decisions have not taken place that way, just simply voting with no explanations.
The board president should take the initiative to change that. Having sat on the town council, I can tell you that sometimes too much time is spent explaining positions which is just the opposite of the school board. As one of he largest employers and consumer of tax dollars in the area, they have a responsibility to answer publicly on their decisions. No ifs. No ands. No buts.
I am not certain what to think except on this specific case. Maybe it is my opinion only but I doubt it. This officer in question probably should have been terminated a year ago. Anybody in the real world who is a person that is to be trusted by the public, probably would be terminated for sending "salacious pictures and sexually explicit cell phone messages" to someone that they are working with.
Tom, I'm with you, but I will say that in my contacts with other officers they were quite embarrassed by the previous incident and most would suggest that the consequences were to light for the incident. If a student sends stuff like that, we are mandated to report it to law enforcement. If stiffer consequences had been administered the first time, this 2nd incident would not have occurred by a person in uniform. As you know, fair or not, some are held to higher standards.
What an interesting story by Alexis in the Roundup. http://www.paysonroundup.com/news/201...
An interesting editorial on the state of the police department. http://www.paysonroundup.com/news/201...
Quoting the editorial: "Still, we believe the town council should focus intensely on this unfortunate series of resignations, demotions and firings. The pattern established should set off a not-so-silent alarm in town hall."
Should the Town Council become actively involved? If so, how and what should they do? Should the officer have been terminated the last time which involved (as Alexis writes) "sending salacious pictures and sexually explicit cell phone messages"? That would have made this latest incident a "non-incident" since the person in question would not have been in uniform.
Just some food for thought.
Last login: Wednesday, October 10, 2012