My concern is that the original bond to fund FES, the Dome at the high school and an addition to the middle school was 9.9 million dollars. I believe that FES was about half of that. After it was built, they had to upgrade the electric panel. They also upgraded the kitchen. Then they put in in the field and well for irrigation. Later, they put classrooms in the P.E. dome. Finally, the year before they closed it, they took money from the bond that funded the new JRE and the Middle school renovation and added to the parking lot. When you add all this together it's around 5.5 million. Now after 17 years (it opened in 1996) it is for sale for 1.25 million. I think that's about 23% of the cost. It's a bargain for sure. However, only in education with bond tax money can you afford to build something for 5.5 million, maintain it for 17 years and sell it for 23% of the cost. Not counted in this is another 2 million or so that was received via fed. and state funding for amending right of ways for schools etc. I would only add that price tag in JRE was about 20 million. It will hold about 500 or so. I believe FES had around a 400 student capacity. In the event a new elementary school is needed in 5 or 6 years, the price tag will most likely be around 25 million for a 400 student elementary school. This school district would go to bond for this money. As well, by that time, the chances are that many aging buildings at the high school will need fixing as well. Is this a good use of taxpayer money? Will it ingratiate the public to pass another bond, or a budget override they will be asking for in two years - or will it alienate an already strapped public?
Now, I realize there are some that might dismiss my apprehensions as leftover "bad blood" from the debacle three years ago. However, many will realize these numbers are real - from the last bond all the way to the projected cost of a new elementary in five to six years.
My concern is that the original bond to fund FES, the Dome at the high school and an addition to the middle school was 9.9 million dollars. I believe that FES was about half of that. After it was built, they had to upgrade the electric panel. They also upgraded the kitchen. Then they put in in the field and well for irrigation. Later, they put classrooms in the P.E. dome. Finally, the year before they closed it, they took money from the bond that funded the new JRE and the Middle school renovation and added to the parking lot. When you add all this together it's around 5.5 million. Now after 17 years (it opened in 1996) it is for sale for 1.25 million. I think that's about 23% of the cost. It's a bargain for sure. However, only in education with bond tax money can you afford to build something for 5.5 million, maintain it for 17 years and sell it for 23% of the cost. I would only add that price tag in JRE was about 20 million. It will hold about 500 or so. I believe FES had around a 400 student capacity. In the event a new elementary school is needed in 5 or 6 years, the price tag will most likely be around 25 million for a 400 student elementary school.
My concern would that the original bond to fund FES, the Dome at the high school and an addition to the middle school was 9.9 million dollars. I believe that FES was about half of that. After it was built, they had to upgrade the electric panel. They also upgraded the kitchen. Then they put in in the field and well for irrigation. Later, they put classrooms in the P.E. dome. Finally, the year before they closed it, they took money from the bond that funded the new JRE and the Middle school renovation and added to the parking lot. When you add all this together it's around 5.5 million. Now after 17 years (it opened in 1996) it is for sale for 1.25 million. I think that's about 23% of the cost. It's a bargain for sure. However, only in education with bond tax money can you afford to build something for 5.5 million, maintain it for 17 years and sell it for 23% of the cost. I would only add that price tag in JRE was about 20 million. It will hold about 500 or so. I believe FES had around a 400 student capacity. In the event a new elementary school is needed in 5 or 6 years, the price tag will most likely be around 25 million for a 400 student elementary school.
Report? I saw nothing other than what they talked about in September. SMART goals should have already been developed. There is nothing here of substance to justify calling this a report. By this point, at the very least I would have expected, baseline data on significant data points. A root cause analysis, short term goals addressing specific baseline data points and progress displayed as empirically as possible accompanied by an explanation as to progress or lack thereof.
I believe this is a good move on the part of Mr. Hitchcock. I have one caveat. It will only be effective and worth the money long term if the Board and Superintendent take the information and determine a set number of "longitudinal trackable" data points. These data points must then be memorialized as baseline data. The data points should then be monitored and the independent study repeated in two to three years to ascertain whether progress has been made. Yes, this costs more money but this model really focuses people on improvement long term.
I say this because districts are famous for implementing a big (and expensive) enterprise such as this but neglecting the long term followup. The institutional memory is short. Superintendents turn over, Boards turnover, principals turnover and teachers turnover. Consequently, the study is never even remembered let alone used for improvement.
Case in point. The paper said this is the first time the district had done this. Actually the district brought in an independent company and did the same thing in the late 90's. The information was initially acted on, however, the second step described above was not implemented.
I commend Mr. Hitchcock for this bold move and would encourage the Board and new board members to follow his lead on this but insist on taking the next long term step.
I believe this is a good move on the part of Mr. Hitchcock. I have one caveat. It will only be effective and worth the money long term if the Board and Superintendent take the information and determine a set number of "longitudinal trackable" data points. These data points must then be memorialized as baseline data. The data points should then be monitored and the independent study repeated in two to three years to ascertain whether progress has been made. Yes, this costs more money but this model really focuses people on improvement long term.
I say this because districts are famous for implementing a big (and expensive) enterprise such as this but neglecting the long term followup. The institutional memory is short. Superintendents turn over, Boards turnover, principals turnover and teachers turnover. Consequently, the study is never even remembered let alone used for improvement.
Case in point. The paper said this is the first time the district had done this. Actually the district brought in an independent company and did the same thing in the late 90's. The information was initially acted on, however, the second step described above was not implemented.
Having used Tim and I as an example, let me state that it's not about us, we landed on our feet and have done very well. Others who were "terminated"via the RIF policy have as well. It's about the fact that the practice of easily terminating someone using (or abusing) the RIF policy has created a system where staff are frightened to death to give a true opinion that might be interpreted as opposing the administration. They have observed people with strong opinions become targets. In turn, it has brought about mistrust between staff members and between staff and administration - and with that, very low morale. It also weakens the system. Freedom to exchange ideas and opinions, particularly opposing ideas are at the heart of creating a strong and vibrant community where people are validated and feel efficacy in their contributions. I am hoping the change in Superintendent and near future changes on the board will bring about some insight and thoughtful intelligence toward revising the policy and specifically the practices and administrative implementation such that staff are able to once again experience the sense of security necessary to recreate a healthy educational climate and culture. Use your vote wisely.
Ÿ The Superintendent shall submit to the Board recommendations for the termination of specific staff members. The criteria used in formulating these recommendations shall include, but shall not be limited to:
§ Qualifications and certification of staff members to accomplish the District's educational program, including certification requirements for specialty categories and designation as a highly qualified teacher.
§ Overall teaching experience, academic training, and ability.
§ Past contributions to the educational program of the District.
Teacher tenure and seniority shall not be considerations in retention determinations.
Personnel to be released shall be notified as soon as practical.
CROSS REF.: GCB - Professional Staff Contracts and Compensation
What it does is leave it wide open. Here is the case in point. When Tim and I were RIF'd. My replacement had as many years in fact a few more in education but had only been a principal/sup. at a K-8 200 student district and a 50 student high school charter school with 3 years post retirement in Payson. I had been with the district 25 years, had been a principal at a k-5 school, the high school and a curriculum director. In terms of contribution to the district, I co-wrote and procured funding for the 50 student charter school where my replacement came from. As well, I wrote the original documents for the career ladder program which at that point had brought about 8 million dollars over 15 years. Finally, I had excellent evaluations including the year I was RIF'd Tim, with 29 years of experience and successful service as a middle school and high school principal was RIF'd and replaced with someone who not only had NO administrative experience but no principal certificate. The position was "massaged" to accommodate this.
Finally, the law facilitate this was passed in the fall, our "termination" and the "RIF' happened the following spring.
I would just challenge the readers to look at the policy, read the Board candidate statements and consider the history of "RIF'ing" by the Board (Tim and I are just one case Silverman's is equally as poor) and make a decision on how you think it has been used. Then make a decision on your vote.
The real question is this: How is it that the this North Central accredited high school received a "B" while the PUSD Payson Center for success received a "D" with no Roundup coverage. Mrs. Miles and her staff are taking kids that have been rejected from PUSD and making them successful. Now that is a story!
roy sandoval 3 months ago on What is wrong with the School board
What is wrong with the School board
My concern is that the original bond to fund FES, the Dome at the high school and an addition to the middle school was 9.9 million dollars. I believe that FES was about half of that. After it was built, they had to upgrade the electric panel. They also upgraded the kitchen. Then they put in in the field and well for irrigation. Later, they put classrooms in the P.E. dome. Finally, the year before they closed it, they took money from the bond that funded the new JRE and the Middle school renovation and added to the parking lot. When you add all this together it's around 5.5 million. Now after 17 years (it opened in 1996) it is for sale for 1.25 million. I think that's about 23% of the cost. It's a bargain for sure. However, only in education with bond tax money can you afford to build something for 5.5 million, maintain it for 17 years and sell it for 23% of the cost. Not counted in this is another 2 million or so that was received via fed. and state funding for amending right of ways for schools etc. I would only add that price tag in JRE was about 20 million. It will hold about 500 or so. I believe FES had around a 400 student capacity. In the event a new elementary school is needed in 5 or 6 years, the price tag will most likely be around 25 million for a 400 student elementary school. This school district would go to bond for this money. As well, by that time, the chances are that many aging buildings at the high school will need fixing as well. Is this a good use of taxpayer money? Will it ingratiate the public to pass another bond, or a budget override they will be asking for in two years - or will it alienate an already strapped public?
Now, I realize there are some that might dismiss my apprehensions as leftover "bad blood" from the debacle three years ago. However, many will realize these numbers are real - from the last bond all the way to the projected cost of a new elementary in five to six years.
roy sandoval 3 months ago on Frontier on the auction block
Frontier on the auction block
My concern is that the original bond to fund FES, the Dome at the high school and an addition to the middle school was 9.9 million dollars. I believe that FES was about half of that. After it was built, they had to upgrade the electric panel. They also upgraded the kitchen. Then they put in in the field and well for irrigation. Later, they put classrooms in the P.E. dome. Finally, the year before they closed it, they took money from the bond that funded the new JRE and the Middle school renovation and added to the parking lot. When you add all this together it's around 5.5 million. Now after 17 years (it opened in 1996) it is for sale for 1.25 million. I think that's about 23% of the cost. It's a bargain for sure. However, only in education with bond tax money can you afford to build something for 5.5 million, maintain it for 17 years and sell it for 23% of the cost. I would only add that price tag in JRE was about 20 million. It will hold about 500 or so. I believe FES had around a 400 student capacity. In the event a new elementary school is needed in 5 or 6 years, the price tag will most likely be around 25 million for a 400 student elementary school.
roy sandoval 3 months ago on Frontier For Sale
Frontier For Sale
My concern would that the original bond to fund FES, the Dome at the high school and an addition to the middle school was 9.9 million dollars. I believe that FES was about half of that. After it was built, they had to upgrade the electric panel. They also upgraded the kitchen. Then they put in in the field and well for irrigation. Later, they put classrooms in the P.E. dome. Finally, the year before they closed it, they took money from the bond that funded the new JRE and the Middle school renovation and added to the parking lot. When you add all this together it's around 5.5 million. Now after 17 years (it opened in 1996) it is for sale for 1.25 million. I think that's about 23% of the cost. It's a bargain for sure. However, only in education with bond tax money can you afford to build something for 5.5 million, maintain it for 17 years and sell it for 23% of the cost. I would only add that price tag in JRE was about 20 million. It will hold about 500 or so. I believe FES had around a 400 student capacity. In the event a new elementary school is needed in 5 or 6 years, the price tag will most likely be around 25 million for a 400 student elementary school.
roy sandoval 3 months, 1 week ago on Music to her ears
Music to her ears
Wonderful award for a wonderful teacher who gave so much to rebuild the PHS band into something special. Thank you for all you have done for kids!
roy sandoval 3 months, 2 weeks ago on Middle school reports on turnaround effort
Middle school reports on turnaround effort
Report? I saw nothing other than what they talked about in September. SMART goals should have already been developed. There is nothing here of substance to justify calling this a report. By this point, at the very least I would have expected, baseline data on significant data points. A root cause analysis, short term goals addressing specific baseline data points and progress displayed as empirically as possible accompanied by an explanation as to progress or lack thereof.
roy sandoval 5 months, 4 weeks ago on Independent Study on the Payson School District
Independent Study on the Payson School District
I believe this is a good move on the part of Mr. Hitchcock. I have one caveat. It will only be effective and worth the money long term if the Board and Superintendent take the information and determine a set number of "longitudinal trackable" data points. These data points must then be memorialized as baseline data. The data points should then be monitored and the independent study repeated in two to three years to ascertain whether progress has been made. Yes, this costs more money but this model really focuses people on improvement long term.
I say this because districts are famous for implementing a big (and expensive) enterprise such as this but neglecting the long term followup. The institutional memory is short. Superintendents turn over, Boards turnover, principals turnover and teachers turnover. Consequently, the study is never even remembered let alone used for improvement. Case in point. The paper said this is the first time the district had done this. Actually the district brought in an independent company and did the same thing in the late 90's. The information was initially acted on, however, the second step described above was not implemented.
I commend Mr. Hitchcock for this bold move and would encourage the Board and new board members to follow his lead on this but insist on taking the next long term step.
roy sandoval 5 months, 4 weeks ago on School district struggles to grade teachers
School district struggles to grade teachers
I believe this is a good move on the part of Mr. Hitchcock. I have one caveat. It will only be effective and worth the money long term if the Board and Superintendent take the information and determine a set number of "longitudinal trackable" data points. These data points must then be memorialized as baseline data. The data points should then be monitored and the independent study repeated in two to three years to ascertain whether progress has been made. Yes, this costs more money but this model really focuses people on improvement long term.
I say this because districts are famous for implementing a big (and expensive) enterprise such as this but neglecting the long term followup. The institutional memory is short. Superintendents turn over, Boards turnover, principals turnover and teachers turnover. Consequently, the study is never even remembered let alone used for improvement.
Case in point. The paper said this is the first time the district had done this. Actually the district brought in an independent company and did the same thing in the late 90's. The information was initially acted on, however, the second step described above was not implemented.
roy sandoval 6 months, 3 weeks ago on What Reduction in Force (RIF) policy?
What Reduction in Force (RIF) policy?
Having used Tim and I as an example, let me state that it's not about us, we landed on our feet and have done very well. Others who were "terminated"via the RIF policy have as well. It's about the fact that the practice of easily terminating someone using (or abusing) the RIF policy has created a system where staff are frightened to death to give a true opinion that might be interpreted as opposing the administration. They have observed people with strong opinions become targets. In turn, it has brought about mistrust between staff members and between staff and administration - and with that, very low morale. It also weakens the system. Freedom to exchange ideas and opinions, particularly opposing ideas are at the heart of creating a strong and vibrant community where people are validated and feel efficacy in their contributions. I am hoping the change in Superintendent and near future changes on the board will bring about some insight and thoughtful intelligence toward revising the policy and specifically the practices and administrative implementation such that staff are able to once again experience the sense of security necessary to recreate a healthy educational climate and culture. Use your vote wisely.
roy sandoval 6 months, 3 weeks ago on What Reduction in Force (RIF) policy?
What Reduction in Force (RIF) policy?
Here is the policy, directly out of the policy manual: G-5800 © GCQA
PROFESSIONAL STAFF
REDUCTION IN FORCE
The number and type of certificated staff positions required to implement the District's educational program will be determined by the Board after recommendation from the Superintendent. In the event the Board decides to release certificated staff members, the following guidelines will be in effect:
Ÿ The Superintendent shall submit to the Board recommendations for the termination of specific staff members. The criteria used in formulating these recommendations shall include, but shall not be limited to:
§ Qualifications and certification of staff members to accomplish the District's educational program, including certification requirements for specialty categories and designation as a highly qualified teacher.
§ Overall teaching experience, academic training, and ability.
§ Past contributions to the educational program of the District.
Teacher tenure and seniority shall not be considerations in retention determinations.
Personnel to be released shall be notified as soon as practical.
Adopted: December 14, 2009
LEGAL REF.: A.R.S. 15-502 15-503 15-544 A.G.O. I78-286
CROSS REF.: GCB - Professional Staff Contracts and Compensation
What it does is leave it wide open. Here is the case in point. When Tim and I were RIF'd. My replacement had as many years in fact a few more in education but had only been a principal/sup. at a K-8 200 student district and a 50 student high school charter school with 3 years post retirement in Payson. I had been with the district 25 years, had been a principal at a k-5 school, the high school and a curriculum director. In terms of contribution to the district, I co-wrote and procured funding for the 50 student charter school where my replacement came from. As well, I wrote the original documents for the career ladder program which at that point had brought about 8 million dollars over 15 years. Finally, I had excellent evaluations including the year I was RIF'd Tim, with 29 years of experience and successful service as a middle school and high school principal was RIF'd and replaced with someone who not only had NO administrative experience but no principal certificate. The position was "massaged" to accommodate this.
Finally, the law facilitate this was passed in the fall, our "termination" and the "RIF' happened the following spring.
I would just challenge the readers to look at the policy, read the Board candidate statements and consider the history of "RIF'ing" by the Board (Tim and I are just one case Silverman's is equally as poor) and make a decision on how you think it has been used. Then make a decision on your vote.
roy sandoval 8 months, 2 weeks ago on Payson Education Center proud of state ranking
Payson Education Center proud of state ranking
The real question is this: How is it that the this North Central accredited high school received a "B" while the PUSD Payson Center for success received a "D" with no Roundup coverage. Mrs. Miles and her staff are taking kids that have been rejected from PUSD and making them successful. Now that is a story!