8/31/2011
Last Friday, the superintendent wrote a response to my opening letter to the membership. Since the entire district was addressed in the response, union members as well as our non-union friends and colleagues, and the district list serve was used, I am obligated to respond in kind. As the Union will not lower itself into a he said / she said contest, this will be our last public statement on the matter. If necessary, we will take the matter to other venues. The facts are indisputable, the comments made by staff members and board of education members are undeniable, and the Union stands by the initial letter.
As both members and non-members alike have remarked, the superintendent never actually addresses most of the points of our letter.
· Nowhere does she address her illegal altering of the August agenda
· Nowhere does she answer why she falsely reported student enrollment numbers for Wirth School of Choice to the Board of Education
· Nowhere does she explain why she told the Board of Education that High School Main campus already had two assistant principals for the 2010-2011 school year when it did not
· Nowhere does she address the Chief Financial Officer's concerns of not being able to pay for the positions
Several statements made by Dr. Manning cannot go unanswered and must be addressed:
- The Union stands by our charge; the district did promise the only administrative and staff positions that would be created this year were those required by code or desperately needed by the District.
- Mr. Brooks served as Student-Parent liaison for the 2010-2011. This position was created using stimulus/job Ed monies. It ended at the conclusion of the year. He was not and did not ever serve as an assistant principal at Cahokia High School Main campus. Spin it any way you wish, the fact remains there was only one assistant principal.
- According to the superintendent's letter, the population of HS-Main is 485. Divide that by the two administrators and the student/admin ratio is 242.5:1 lower than the majority of the schools in the district. The addition of another assistant lowers this to 162:1. In a perfect world this would be wonderful, but not after the district was asked to take a freeze for the second year in a row and does not have the money to pay for the additional administrative staff.
- The assistant principal of Wirth School of Choice, by admission of senior staff, should probably never have existed in the first place given the number of students at that facility. This year the enrollment is even less. According to five members of the Board of Education, the superintendent reported WSoC enrollment as 400 and soon to be 500. Actual numbers are as follows:
o 8/8/11 superintendent reports to board enrollment is 400 soon to be 500 students
§ 8/12/11 according to board building enrollment for WSoC: 290
§ 8/18/11 according to board building enrollment for WSoC: 330
§ 8/26/11 according to Dr. Manning's letter enrollment for WSoC: 351
o All figures still far from the threshold of 400 needed for an Assistant Principal
- The superintendent attempts to cloud the facts by making statements such as "the entire student population for this complex is 772 students and rising". This figure is for all three schools of the complex (Freshman Academy, Sophomore Academy, and Wirth School of Choice). Keeping in mind that each school has a separate enrollment, if you follow the superintendent's reasoning, you must divide that figure by the three principals and you arrive at a administration to student ratio of 1:257. Add in the AP and it falls to 1:193. Furthermore, the superintendent states the assistant principal's position is "not paid out of General State Aid funds but from a grant", which means not only has she deceptively created this position, she is now diverting grant money that could have been used for direct instruction to our students to pay for this position. A position which the CFO said he could not recommend and senior staff says is not needed. I have requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act (IELRA) exactly which grants and accounts this is being paid from. As with the High School-Main Assistant, if the district was on a sound financial footing, if the monies were not so desperately needed elsewhere, and if the staff of #187 had not taken a freeze for the second year in a row, then the creation of this position may have even been encouraged as well as others. But this is not the case at this time. The District cannot afford either of the assistants, and for the time being, they must be eliminated.
- The Superintendent addressed the Assistant Director of Curriculum - High School. The Union has never questioned this position and are not sure why it is mentioned. We do question why this was originally proposed as a full Director's position with matching salary. We do question why the job description was rewritten so the Assistant Director of Curriculum - High School does not report to the Director of Curriculum but rather directly to the Superintendent. But we do not question the position of Assistant Curriculum Director for Secondary Education.
- The Union understands the circumstances surrounding the Director of Human Resource position. As explained at the general membership meeting, this position was recreated in October 2010 when the Board of Education was becoming concerned with the direction the district was heading but did make an appointment immediately. By June, the BoE believed situations in the district had degenerated to the point they felt it could not wait any longer and filled the position. Unlike when the superintendent demanded the assistant principals, Mr. Harvey was consulted by the Board on this position and was given ample notice in order to work the position into the 2011-2012 fiscal year's budget that was submitted to the State.
The superintendent wrote of her concern of the Union leadership not addressing these issues "with her personally", yet fails to mention how on the night of the August 8th, 2011 Board of Education meeting, when these positions in question were created, the Union leadership argued very loudly and vigorously in opposition. We spoke with the District's Attorney, the Director of Finance, the Human Resource Director, the President of the Board of Education and 4 members of the Board. Not once did the
superintendent come out of the back room. Amazingly, with all the yelling and noise, she was not concerned enough to see what was going on or why anyone was upset. When Board members went into the back room to check the information we supplied, she still did not come out to speak with us nor dispute our facts. She remained in the back. She did not even come outside as we carried our discussions with Board members to the parking lot.
The superintendent speaks of working cooperatively, but is creating an environment that makes attaining this goal very difficult. It is becoming a near impossible task to work with the superintendent when:
- Promises are broken with the Union as we try to cooperate in the best interest of the district and community
- Accountability is preached to the staff, yet this same standard is not applied to the office of the superintendent
- Student enrollment numbers are manipulated in order to gain her desires no matter if it violates agreements and puts the district in a more financially dangerous position, which could ultimately lead to a State take-over
- Agendas are changed in violation of the Open Meetings Act
- Administrators are directed to terminate teachers if they did not rate excellent in all categories, yet this standard is not applied to the office of the superintendent
- Scores fall all four years she is principal of the high school and a year as superintendent, yet demands those student scores rise or staff will be replaced
- Administrative staff is blamed for issues that arise out of her policies
- Questions are being raised of illegal activities
- The Board of Education, by their own account, has been mislead/lied to
- The morale of the staff is constantly undermined (ex: the 2010 Thanksgiving tirade)
- A fear of retaliation prevails
- Even with an acknowledged budgetary crisis, the superintendent was willing to pull $2.3 million dollars out of the District budget for the next 25 years in order to pay for a new high school after the community overwhelmingly rejected the referendum
- The District's bill to the architects came to approximately $2 million dollars, of which a significant portion came after the community rejected the referendum
Further evidence of the superintendent's disconnect came Wednesday, August 24, 2011, at the BOE's Personnel committee meeting. After being approached by the superintendent concerning the Union's letter, I attempted to express the disappointment, anger, and outrage felt by the staff. The superintendent replied that with the exception of my letter, she hasn't heard from anyone. She seems to truly believe that you are not upset by her actions, recommendations and spending. The Union executive council is aware of and understands the fear of retaliation. If you do not believe you can speak to the superintendent or members of the Board of Education, please pass on your concerns to your building representatives. We will make sure that the Board is aware of your concerns.
Brent