We Can Do Better

It felt like sitting down to a great meal and finding someone's tooth in it, or like getting to know someone then hearing him or her make some racist remark. 

I was pleased with the election results. We needed a more progressive governor; and when I talked with Michelle Lujan Grisham I liked her immediately. 

Thursday I read that Stan Rounds was under consideration for Secretary of Education. That sparked memories of spending many hours looking into many complaints about Rounds, the superintendent of schools here until mid-2016. 

There are complaints about most anyone with any power, anywhere.

But most of what I'd heard about Rounds checked out. He was a “my way or the highway” type; and his way appeared to involve appointing or retaining too many employees for the wrong reasons. One apparent example was MacArthur Elementary while his fiancée was employed there.

He also seemed to bristle at the very idea a newspaper columnist might be investigating him. Teachers and administrators were fearful of talking with me – sounding like workers at private companies I investigated as a lawyer, and like Doña Ana County sheriff's deputies more recently. The fear level shouldn't be so high in a school system.

Rounds has his fans. Folks seem to either love him or hate him. Some think he'd be a great choice for secretary of education. Others say he'd be the worst choice ever. 

I can only say that for a lot of the people involved in education in Las Cruces, there'd be a huge whoosh as the air went out of their enthusiasm for the new state administration.

I called school board member Maria Flores to ask how likely a Rounds appointment was. She didn't know. I asked for her thoughts on the position. “I'm looking for a visionary. Someone who would take us into a new model with a more progressive and more inclusive view. Education is not a business. It's not about making money. It's about teaching students and showing them how to be successful in the world. I don't think that is his vision.” Ms. Flores also taught for a couple of years during Rounds's tenure.

Flores makes a good point. Personal failings aside, no one could accuse Rounds of being a visionary. He's an administrator. An accountant. Even if all the complaints I heard about him were bogus, he just isn't what we need in this position now.

I don't know who else is under consideration. I'd want someone who was experienced as a teacher, had some overall vision for education here, had a demonstrated record of leading others and listening to them, tended to maintain control without unnecessarily hurting morale, and was responsible as to budget. Most of those are not Mr. Rounds's strong points.

I also looked back at my own columns [see links below]. Those confirmed that many sources gave consistent accounts of Rounds's alleged favoritism and bullying. As I wrote then, “I've also heard the fear in people's voices, a fear that has no place in a well-run organization. One person, declining to comment, said that the walls had ears, adding that someone could be listening outside the door. 'I can't afford to lose my job for answering your question.'”

Would Rounds's management style torpedo morale in the PED – as it reportedly did here? I don't see a pressing need to take that risk.

                                                   -30-

[The above column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 16 December 2018.  It also appears on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website, and a spoken version will air during the week on both KRWG and KTAL, 101.5 FM (www.lccommunityradio.org) ]

[Hate to rehash old problems; but these were recent (less than three years back), were obviously relevant, and reflected his character and a management pattern and practice -- not an atypical moment of inattention or an accident.  (And I held back on one point, one that particularly appalled me personally, because the source, whom I know and trust, would be immediately apparent if I wrote what he told me.)  Searching Stan Rounds takes you to this set of earlier columns mentioning Rounds, including:

Dodgeball Anyone? [26 January 2014] concerned morale problems at Desert Hills Elementary;
Teachers Allege Favoritism and Bad Management [7June2015];
Are Bullying and Favoritism Undermining Las Cruces Public Schools [12June 2015].

The "Bullying and Favoritism" post starts:
 

There's apparently a bullying problem within the Las Cruces Public School District: many employees say Superintendent Stan Rounds shows extreme favoritism toward folks he likes but has many others “very scared.”
This column is based on extensive conversations with people who will go mostly unnamed because they fear retribution from Rounds. I've found many folks convincing. I've noticed consistency among accounts from different people in different schools and in different positions. 
I've also heard the fear in people's voices, a fear that has no place in a well-run organization. One person, declining to comment, said that the walls had ears, adding that someone could be listening outside the door. “I can't afford to lose my job for answering your question.” 
Many allege that Rounds's favoritism torpedoes morale. They complain of his favoritism toward his fiancée Kathy Adams and her family. 

Several teachers and administrators complained about kids seeing the Superintendent and his fiancee in "public displays of affection," but I doubt that did any harm to the kids.  Probably humanized the guy.  If I recall my boyhood, it would have been quite amusing, and we'd have all crowded to the window to look, but no harm done.

Rounds also appears in an August 2014 column , the second of two columns concerning the poor treatment of a beloved and apparently quite competent teacher falsely accused of "inappropriate touching" of a fourth-grade girl. The first column -- A Sad Story - Part I -- doesn't mention Mr. Rounds by name.  Those two columns tell a sad story about a tough problem.  The charges were apparently concocted by the child because she was in trouble over something and wanted to distract school authorities; ultimately the charges against the teacher were all dismissed; and I'd sure not have written about the fellow's innocence of the charges unless I'd become damned sure, from all the evidence, that he hadn't done any such thing.

In the school's defense, that's a tough problem to handle, and a sensitive one; there's a duty to protect kids; but at the same time a close examination of the school's internal handling of the situation seemed to show that the school had leapt to the wrong conclusion and mishandled confidential hearings.  A fairer hearing could have and perhaps should have uncovered the same evidence that led the D.A.'s office to dismiss molestation charges.  I can only hope the school system learned something from that episode.  

The months following a January headline "Las Cruces Schoolteacher Arrested, Charged with Molesting Students" (with the usual unappealing mug shot) were hellish for the teacher and his family.  However, this story is only marginally relevant to Mr. Rounds.  In my view, he didn't conduct school business properly, but in a tough situation; and KVIA's sensationalist handling of the thing border on viciousness.]

Bottom line: Rounds brings some serious baggage to a candidacy for an important state position in education.  Choosing him would be a hint of "business as usual" and would appall a lot of the folks who dealt with him in Las Cruces.]

Dodgeball, Anyone ?

Our radio discussions frequently return to a critical problem with education: parents need to care, parents need to participate.

But what happens when they do? 
 
Some years ago, concerned parents resuscitated the parents' group at Desert Hills Elementary School. They organized and ran several large-scale fund-raising events. They were deeply involved in what went on at the school. 
 
The group reportedly did a lot of good. Members raised funds and helped teachers, students, and staff. “It was becoming a family,” said Gena Castillo, who headed up the group.

Then Desert Hills got a new principal, Liz Gonzales, whose people skills allegedly weren't strong. One teacher recently told me that but for the parents' group, she'd have transferred.
Turnover rose dramatically: formerly, one or two of 74 teachers/staff left each year. One teacher was told when she arrived, “You're awfully lucky. People never leave Desert Hills.” Now turnover is more like 18 of 74 – with a few departees reportedly stating they'd have stayed but for Ms. Gonzales.

The school's warmth and unity have reportedly disappeared. 
 
Ms. Gonzales's management style is an issue. During the spring and summer, parents tried repeatedly to get a meaningful response from the school administration. They met with two people from H.R., then Steve Sanchez, and ultimately Superintendent Stan Rounds. They say they got no satisfaction at any level. Almost everyone promised to get back to them. No one really did.

Then on August 5, Ms. Gonzales sent out an email announcing that the Parents' Group was being disbanded, but would be “folded in” to a new School Advisory Committee (“SAC”). She created the SAC without following District rules and regulations. (She reportedly said the School Board or Superintendent Stan Rounds had authorized an exception.)

Regulations state that within the LCPS District, to start an SAC the principal should solicit candidates, announce an election, and hold the election by the end of the academic year. Ms. Gonzales should have started by Spring 2013, to create a democratically-elected SAC for the 2013-2014 academic year. Instead, she created her own.

The SAC is meant to provide outside advice to the principal. By appointing her own rather than having parents vote, Ms. Gonzales undermined the chance for such independent advice. 
 
SAC's are meant to encourage parental involvement in policy matters. The existing group was highly involved, and knowledgeable. The principal placed none of its members on her new hand-picked SAC. 
 
Ms. Gonzalez also allegedly retaliated or tried to retaliate against parents and faculty who spoke up about her. At one point she reportedly demanded a list, with contact information, of all parents who'd attended a certain meeting of just parents. She told teachers not to talk with parents about internal matters at the school. She told a teacher who'd openly criticized her that the teacher would get a “marginally effective” rating under Professionalism on her evaluation, but backed down when the teacher pointed out how that would look. She allegedly offered to raise another teacher's evaluation if the teacher would contradict others' accounts of the problems at the school.

Morale at the school is said to be lower than ever. Superintendent Stan Rounds spoke to the teachers at a special meeting in mid-December, and said his assistant Liz Marrufa would be there to help fix the problems; but one teacher said Ms. Marrufa has been to the school only once since that meeting.

I've never been inside the school. I have no idea who's right. 
 
But whoever's right (or if each side's testimony contains some truth), a serious issue is the apparent failure of the school administration to address these problems candidly and productively. “We just want to be heard,” one parent told me.

Beneath the surface lie other issues, some very serious, that I'm not yet in a position to discuss in a meaningful way. (I invite teachers or parents with useful information to contact me.) 
 
And I'm hoping to discuss with Mr. Rounds some of what he said to the Desert Hills teachers on December 12^th, and what follow-through has occurred.

Two things happened as I was writing this column: a parent spoke about this issue to Tuesday's regular school board meeting; and Ms. Gonzales provided a great example of just what parents had complained of in the way of non-responsiveness.

I called. She called back. She very politely said nothing substantive. She asked that I call back at a certain time the next morning. I did. Didn't get her. I called twice more. No call back. That evening I got a call from Eric Montgomery, a parent new to Desert Hills. He's on the new SAC. He knew nothing about the issues I'd been interested in, but said that the SAC was accomplishing good things and always seeks additional parental involvement.

However, he hadn't even heard of the December 12^th meeting or the serious problems discussed there by Rounds, which suggested the school hadn't disclosed to the SAC things the old parents' group had known.

Dodgeball, anyone?
                                                             -30-
[This Sunday column appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News on 26 January, 2014.]
[Writing this column, I'd have preferred to hear from Ms. Gonzales her views on these issues.  Even when I spoke with Mr. Montgomery, who seemed like a concerned, candid, and well-intentioned parent, I urged him to point out to Ms. Gonzales that I was interested in presenting a balanced column; but she never chose to present her side, or even call back to explain that for some reason she shouldn't or that I should talk to someone else or whatever.  Frankly, she started sounding a whole lot like the non-responsiveness that  others had described to me.]
[I do know that one issue that helped create or deepen the rift at Desert Hills was the handling of the suspension of a fourth-grade teacher accused of sexual misconduct.  He was reportedly very popular with his students.  While it's not clear that anyone questions his suspension, the students (who saw him there one day and gone the next, with no explanation whatsoever, not even that there were legal issues administrators weren't allowed to explain yet) were understandably unsettled.  (So were some teachers.)  According to one source, Principal Gonzales was surprised to hear that the teacher's disappearance troubled the students.  If true, that would seem a symptom of being insensitive or out of touch with her students.]
[In any case, there's reason to suspect that there are several interesting stories here that demand to be looked into.  I'm particularly interested in the specific causes (and results, if any) of the December 12th meeting Superintendent Rounds had with teachers at Desert Hills.]

Are Bullying and Favoritism Undermining Las Cruces Public Schools?

There's apparently a bullying problem within the Las Cruces Public School District: many employees say Superintendent Stan Rounds shows extreme favoritism toward folks he likes but has many others “very scared.”

This column is based on extensive conversations with people who will go mostly unnamed because they fear retribution from Rounds. I've found many folks convincing. I've noticed consistency among accounts from different people in different schools and in different positions. 
 
I've also heard the fear in people's voices, a fear that has no place in a well-run organization. One person, declining to comment, said that the walls had ears, adding that someone could be listening outside the door. “I can't afford to lose my job for answering your question.” 
 
Many allege that Rounds's favoritism torpedoes morale. They complain of his favoritism toward his fiancée Kathy Adams and her family. 
 
The JUMP (Joint Ungraded Multi-age Program) story is a beautiful one that turns sad. Teachers from JUMP (and LEAP) speak with true excitement about the teaching they did. The idea was to work with kids who might otherwise be held back because they couldn't read, using a creative combination of new technology and ideas as old as the one-room schoolhouse to improve kids' academic performance.

It seems to have worked. Teachers describe a very non-traditional classroom where a second-grader would be helping a kindergarten kid make her letters and another student would be reading to a row of stuffed toys along the wall. “They thought they were playing. They didn't even know they were learning.”

But they did learn. Not by rote, either, but by good old-fashioned creative teaching. My understanding is that by year's end these kids – from the most difficult socio-economic backgrounds and with the poorest histories of reading and study – had gone from “They'll have to be left back” to above-average among their peers.

But Mr. Rounds's personal motives got in the way. He made Ms. Adams the instruction specialist, although she was not particularly qualified. There was an interviewing process in name only.
Barbara Hammond, an experienced teacher who interviewed for the position, says there were applicants far more qualified than she or Ms. Adams; but she says it was clear that the administration had someone in mind. Ms. Adams, whom she likes, even tried to warn her, urging her (before the selection was made) not to be disappointed. An early teacher in the JUMP Program stated that Ms. Adams was by far the least qualified candidate for the position.

Once installed as instruction specialist, and later principal (though she'd never been an assistant principal, so far as I know), Ms. Adams pressed her ideas on the teachers and invoked Mr. Rounds's name to up the pressure when she didn't get what she wanted. According to some teachers, she forced the group to use methods that didn't fit what they were trying to accomplish. Teachers who'd gone to work joyfully began having a very different experience. 
 
I'm told that most or all of the teachers in JUMP (and LEAP) filed extensive grievances this past year about Adams; but since the grievances go only to her supervisor, Mr. Rounds, getting a fair hearing has been difficult. 
 
There have also been extensive complaints about JUMP (and LEAP) getting goodies other schools and departments don't procure so easily.

Regardless of whether there's serious bullying and favoritism, I'm wondering about the ethics of Rounds making decisions to spend significant chunks of public money on his girlfriend. How can he be expected to make those decisions in an unbiased way, purely in the school district's interest, as the law requires? We all know love makes things awfully complicated.
                                                         -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 14 June and will appear later today on KRWG-TV's website.  It's the second of two related columns.  The first  primarily discussed MacArthur Elementary.  The comments people posted in response to that first one were interesting.  A couple of additional individuals with experience at MacArthur echoed what I'd been told; and one (who apparently joined the "blogging community" this month just to comment negatively on my post) defended principal Ragan.  Privately, someone I know who left before Ms. Ragan's tenure took issue with my favorable reference to her predecessor Mr. Stuart, and said he too was a bully.]
[Meanwhile, several people have asked me why Mr. Rounds is not on administrative leave pending the reported investigation of LEAP.  He told me he hadn't been told what it's about.  That suggests that the board may not trust him and that he may be a target of the investigation.  That does lead one to wonder why he should not only be still in the office but reportedly scheduling interviews for the outside investigators.  But since the Board also doesn't tell me what's going on either, I can't begin to answer anyone's questions concerning Mr. Rounds.]

[These sorts of columns are draining to write, and this one was all the more so because I was revising it well into the week -- while recovering from a full hip replacement operation I had Tuesday morning.  (btw, if you may need such an operation, let me note that after having had two hips replaced within the past 12 months, plus a little investigation, I could not recommend Dr. Brandon Broome in El Paso more highly.  He seems excellent; I recovered quickly and fully from the first operation, and this one seems to have gone well too; other people I know have also had good experience with him.  He's in El Paso.  Charles Brandon Broome.)  

It's draining to deal with people who are scared and stressed.  It's draining to deal with people who put their hearts and souls into something -- whether it's being a sheriff's deputy or teaching kids -- and are getting unnecessarily abused in a work-place where it's clear that speaking out could be a career-ending move.] 

[I've worked in a variety of situations, and have never understood the mentality that demands maximum personal credit for everything good, while rinsing oneself clean of blame as frenetically as Lady MacBeth.  I always felt that folks who spread the credit around fairly were more appealing and ultimately more effective.   I tried to do that when I supervised people.  And I worked more comfortably for people who supervised me that way.

Here, from the NBA because it's on my mind, is a great example.  Game four of the championship finals.  Golden State Warriors, favored, fall behind two games to one in the best-of-seven series, knowing no team has ever come back from a 3-1 deficit in the finals.  The Cleveland Cavaliers, led by Lebron James, are winning, partly by slowing the game down and partly because Lebron is unstoppable.  

Suddenly in Game 4 the Warriors change their starting line-up, starting aging former all-star Andre Iguodala in place of seven-foot center Andrew Bogut, playing 6 foot 7 forward Draymond Green as center, and putting Iguodala on James most of the time on defense.  They "went small" to speed up the game, risking loss of a bunch of rebounds to the taller Cavs.  At least for the moment, it worked.

Head Coach Steve Kerr readily admits that the suggestion came not from him or his top coaches, and not from a star player, but from the low man on the coaching totem pole, a 28-year-old  video assistant.  But Kerr accepted it and gave the kid full credit.  As one commentator put it, "It's rare to see such an open and supportive environment in the NBA, as head coaches are often afraid to be overshadowed by their assistants. In Oakland it seems no one is afraid to speak their minds."

I thought of the Las Cruces Public Schools, where several knowledgeable people have told me that Stan Rounds will often pick a relatively unqualified candidate for principal over a better-qualified candidate who won't ask inconvenient questions.  (There's some anecdotal support for that view, but it would be hard to prove how accurate it is, particularly since personnel records are rightly confidential.)] 

[Ugly things continue to happen at the Las Cruces public schools.]

Teachers Allege Favoritism and Bad Management

            Is MacArthur Elementary a case study in how a superintendent's favoritism can harm a school? Several present and former teachers and staff say it is.   

            Soon after Kathy Adams, Superintendent Stan Rounds's fiancée, was hired at MacArthur, Terry Stuart, MacArthur's very capable principal, moved to Central Office, and  inexperienced Karla Ragan (then Ruiz) replaced him.  

            Ragan had briefly been an assistant principal.  Often it takes an assistant 2-3 years to become Principal.  Rounds says there's no set requirement.

            Once Adams started there, Rounds frequently visited MacArthur.  (“Day and night,” said one person.  Another added, “Mr. Rounds said, 'I love this school.  It's my favorite school.' Then the day she left, no more.”)

            District employees spoke similarly of Rounds's presence at the LEAP Program when Ms. Adams ran that.  “He was there pretty much every day, unless he was traveling on business,” said one source.  Staff and students even complained about public displays of affection, including hugging and kissing. 

            Rounds notes that he helped in designing the program, and that “my frequenting the school may have been more likely because of the design elements.”  He declined to comment on student complaints, but said “It could be that I might have held her hand on occasion as we walked from place to place, but I don't think that's inappropriate.

            Rounds confirmed reports of an investigation of LEAP, but said the Board hadn't advised him of the precise subject.

            Of MacArthur, I heard two very different portraits.

            Numerous sources say Ragan bullied and harassed experienced staff into leaving and that complaints or grievances were “swept under the rug” by Rounds.  Another said a grievance against Ragan would be “professional suicide.  Even if you won, you lost.”  

            The school experienced high turnover.  “The year I left, thirteen of us left.  It was scary being there.  I knew I could lose my job for nothing,” said one teacher.  During Stuart's ten years, few teachers left except to retire.  “We were a family,” one said.  Another said stability is particularly important to a school in a lower socio-economic area.  A third said the school “just fell apart.”

            However, Rounds says that under several objective measures, notably student academic performance, MacArthur has improved significantly under Ms. Ragan's leadership.

            Was the principal jettisoning teachers whose experience made her nervous -- or spotting serious flaws other principals had missed?   She viewed some people who had lengthy and good records, including national board certification, as very bad teachers.  When one teacher remarked that she'd never been evaluated so low, Ragan reportedly said Stuart hadn't known what he was doing.

            There's certainly discontent at MacArthur.   Teachers allege extreme favoritism and “just plain meanness.”  They say that Ragan, perhaps because of her inexperience, felt intimidated by more experienced teachers; and several said, in various ways, that she lets her favorites get by with things but lowers the boom on folks she doesn't care for.   A grievance letter from former teacher Maribel Villalobos accuses Ms. Ragan of “threatening and/or bullying tactics” and of insulting and biased conduct.  Others say Ragan made insulting remarks or demeaned them. 

            Villalobos (who'd taught for thirty years “with never even a 'needs to improve'”) was suddenly placed on a Growth Plan in May 2013.  (“Usually improvement plans come in the fall, when there's time to help someone improve,” one teacher said.)     

            Others dared not speak up publicly about alleged mistreatment.    Others left because they felt that working under Ragan was unpleasant.  Several said she'd let her favorites get away with anything, and lower the boom on non-favorites for trivial offenses or asking inconvenient questions.

            Based on what I'm hearing, I'd urge someone to take a closer look at MacArthur. 

                                                            -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 7 June, and will appear later today on KRWG's website.]

Was School Too Hasty in Firing Jesus Solis

Last week's column discussed the Jesus Solis case, in which a popular teacher was accused of touching children sexually and was indicted on 52 felony counts. When those counts evaporated, he essentially pled guilty to hugging kids.

Police and prosecutors eventually reached the right result. No sex crime.
Meanwhile, Solis was fired by the school board.

School board members are non-lawyers. Some were teachers. They want to do the right thing.

Solis's termination hearing was run largely by their legal counsel, who also drew up the notice of firing. It's not illegal for him to perform dual roles; but was it wise? He wasn't required to follow the rules of evidence, and he didn't.

So what was the testimony?

No child testified Solis did anything sexual. No one testified to seeing him do such a thing.
(Superintendent Stan Rounds, who had a second school-hired lawyer as prosecutor, probably could have brought in the little girl or girls allegedly involved. He didn't. Solis's lawyer had apparently made a “gentleman's agreement” with the D.A. not to subpoena the girls without the D.A.'s permission, and he was having trouble reaching the D.A. The school's lawyers refused to give him more time. Months after the alleged event, what was the sudden urgency? Could it have been that the school's lawyers feared the charges would be exposed as hokum? When prosecutors, looking to convict Solis, questioned the first girl and two others who initially supported her, there was nothing there!)

School principal and counselor testified that one day as they finished questioning a girl about alleged lesbian activities or improper conversations on the subject, and the girl knew she was in trouble, she suddenly, out of nowhere, claimed that Mr. Solis, her teacher the previous year, had touched her inappropriately.

Principal and counselor testified they did not particularly believe or disbelieve the alleged victim.

Two teachers who'd taught the girl testified she had a bigger problem with lying than most kids. Witnesses said two other girls felt so strongly that the alleged victim was lying that they went to the principal.

Both sides agreed that at least two dozen witnesses would have testified in favor of Solis.

The prosecution had the burden of proof (though just a preponderance of evidence, not the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard). So what did the prosecution present?

Rounds and an HR guy testified they believed the little girl. Neither man had talked to her.
Rounds testified that if the girl recanted, he'd still fire Solis.
 
Rounds waffled about whether he'd consulted the principal and what she'd said. He testified that the principal's opinion often contributed to such a decision, and he implied that this principal had supported firing Solis. In fact, she didn't, as she testified under oath.

Rounds testified he acted once Solis got indicted. (An indictment describes the charges but isn't actual evidence. Guilt or innocence gets determined in the criminal proceedings that follow the indictment.)

Rounds and the school's lawyer had padded the termination letter with a bunch of other charges that sound minor. Rounds testified these charges alone were enough to fire Solis. But if that's true, why didn't Rounds do it months ago, and save us some money?

The evidence against Solis was hearsay. Unconvincing hearsay, in my view. The school declined to comment, given an imminent appeal and possible litigation.

There's a lot the board didn't hear in the hearing. Here's hoping the board members take a more active role in deciding the appeal. Rubber-stamping a questionable decision could prove costly.

Mr. Solis, his students, and the taxpayers deserve a fair and reasoned decision.
                                                                                    -30-
[The column above -- Part II of II -- appeared today, Sunday, 10 August in the Las Cruces Sun-News.  Part  I, which ran in the paper a week ago sub nom A Conscientious Teacher Put Through Hell, is available at A Sad Story - Part I or by just paging down past these italicized comments below.]
[I mention in the column that the school district authorities declined to talk to me, because Mr. Solis's appeal hearing is coming up soon and because there could also be litigation of some sort.  I mention that to explain why the school's point-of-view isn't set forth in the column, and certainly not to criticize that silence.  With what I've had available, I've tried to write a fair and accurate account -- and, obviously, I think I've managed that.]
[I can only reiterate that the deeper problem -- how to ensure that we give a huge and empathetic ear to the least hint of sexual molestation of kids while avoiding unnecessarily ruining lives of beloved teachers or other adults who've done nothing of that sort -- remains important, subtle, and challenging.]

On Tuesday's School Board Election

There's a school-board election set for Tuesday, February 3^rd.

Is anybody still reading?
 
I hope so. Whom we choose is important – even if we don't have kid or grandkids in the Las Cruces Public School System. Not only do these folks decide how to spend a bunch of public money, they help determine the educational climate here, which has a bearing on business and quality of life for everyone.

I won't tell you how I'm voting. (My blog post today will explain that, and give reasons.) I can tell you that National Education Association, which doesn't precisely make endorsements, “recommends” Maury Castro in District 4 and Ed Frank in District 5 as the strongest candidates.

I do want to discuss some issues, and some thoughts on how to decide whom to vote for.
Bonnie Votaw, whose retirement from the Board creates a District 4 race without an incumbent, publicized an interesting set of questions for candidates recently – and I'd endorse her questions and add an important one she omitted. (I'll reprint all her questions on today's blog post.)

My additional question is how the board member will approach the relationship between the Board and its hired Superintendent, Stan Rounds. 
 
In all situations with a board and a CEO or manager, public or private, the relationship between the two is an important and often difficult issue. Here, the Superintendent must give fair consideration to the Board's wishes, but the Board should not unduly interfere in day-to-day business. Transparency – Superintend to Board and, except in personnel issues, Board to public – is important. So is the Board's continued alertness to whether the Superintendent is acting properly. Too often a superintendent, who knows day-to-day operations best, can intimidate a Board.

I don't claim sufficient knowledge to say how this Board should regard this Superintendent; but I do think the issue is one of major concern. The recent snow snafu (in which Rounds was criticized, whether deservedly or not, then responded by claiming consultations with other agencies which the other agencies appeared to deny) is but the most recent of several actual or perceived issues deserving a frank discussion. 
 
I hope the Board monitors Rounds closely. I don't presume to say what the results would or should be.

Votaw's initial questions focus on a candidates position on the current policy on state-mandated standardized testing questions, as well as the use of student test-scores as a major element in teacher evaluations. 
 
I think this area is a key issue. The very idea of “teaching to the test” isn't ideal pedagogy. A key factor in successful instruction is the teacher-student rapport, which “teaching to the test” undermines. Standardized tests also: (a) tend to disadvantage students from unusual backgrounds; (b) cause significant and counter-productive stress on teachers and students; and (c) fail to maximize a teacher's chance to really make a difference with students by responding to the specific needs and interests of a class or student. 
 

Votaw also noted that “several of the candidates are affiliated with different political organizations” and would ask, in essence, how those affiliations would affect a candidate's judgment as a board member and commitment to the best interest of the kids. I can only applaud that question. 

Discussions in classrooms or the Boardroom should feature open discussions, a courteous but candid clash of ideas and facts – not a rigid and redundant reiteration of different ideologies.

I guess I'd add this question too: “What's the best evidence that you'll make decisions based on fair and thorough examinations of facts, not on your general political viewpoint?” 

 

Please do vote; and perhaps investigate a little first.

                                                                   -30- 

[The column above appeared this morning, Sunday, 1 February in the Las Cruces Sun-News.  I also wrote a blog post this week, which specifically discusses some reasons I wouldn't vote for Troy Tudor.    You can reach that one by paging down past the next few paragraphs or by clicking here.  ]

[For the record: I would vote with great enthusiasm for Maury Castro in District 4.  He's a modest, thoughtful, capable man.  To the extent I've observed him, he's shown good judgment,.  He has  extensive relevant experience.  I also learned this week that he worked in the mines for 14 years, going to school at night, earning his GED, then bachelor's, and then master's degrees in educational psychology.  I never worked underground in the mines, but I'm pretty sure that doing that every day and then going to school afterward takes an unusual combination of intelligence, diligence, and dedication.  He's a guy who's experienced "real life" but appreciates education profoundly and has both academic knowledge and a quarter-century of relevant experience.  You ask him a question about the local schools and he gives you an intelligent and thoughtful answer.

You listen to Troy Tudor, you hear a generalized answer or a quick retreat to his political ideology.  He sounds more concerned about business than children.  In fact his position as Chamber of Commerce VP creates a major conflict-of-interest. His alleged conduct in the lawsuit mentioned in the earlier post could raise questions about his respect for law, for his neighbors, and for his own word.  He doesn't appear promising material for a constructive and thoughtful school-board member.  Maury does.

There are two other candidates in that race.  Paul Blevins, whose been involved in the school advisory committees where his kids were in school here, clearly knows the local schools and is dedicated to them; but judging from his answers to KRWG's questions, he sounds a little too comfortable with the predominance of standardized tests, and with how things are currently going.  I'd vote for him ahead of Tudor; he seems like an awfully nice guy; but I don't see him helping to bring change and significant improvement. Paul Garcia also sounds well-meaning and somewhat knowledgeable; as with Blevins, I'd vote for him over Tudor; but Maury Castro seems the best of the four.]

[In District 5, I will vote for Ed Frank.  
I don't oppose Connie Phillips as I oppose Troy Tudor.  She's served on the School Board for some time.  I'd vote for her against a lot of possible challengers. She's dedicated and well-meaning.

I think Frank, a 39-year teacher, will bring to the Board a teacher's knowledge of schools and students.  He is also dead set against the horrible over-use of standardized testing in our schools today, and I have confidence that he'd do what he could, within the law, to bring change.  

Two of the system's big problems are (1) over-use of counter-productive standard tests, combined with the inappropriate use of those to evaluate teachers, and (2) a need to adjust the relationship between the Board and the Superintendent.  (I understand that the former problem involves a state mandate.)  Without singling out Dr. Phillips for blame, both problems have gotten worse during the past few years, as far as I can tell.  Dr. Phillips seems a good person, but as one observer put it to me, "She's too passive."   Adding Mr. Frank to the Board would add a member who seems more likely to bring effective change where it's needed.]
    .


 

Let's Listen to Each Other!

Too many people treat politics and government like a football game.

My team is my team no matter what. So what if the tight end attacked a 90-year-old man? They're the 'Niners, man.

Politics oughtta be different. Local politics above all. We're neighbors. But some people see everything in black and white. Or red and blue. 

Someone on Facebook called Julia Brown “the worst county manager ever.” I disagreed. I've criticized her in columns, but she's smart, and I suspect she's hard-working. (I lack enough first-hand information to decide how I'd vote on extending her contract; but with the imminent change of commissioners, a three-year extension doesn't seem wise. An outgoing school board did that with Stan Rounds, which upped the cost to the public when the next board told Rounds to take a hike.)

When I replied that Brown definitely wasn't “the worst county manager ever,” someone said I was in favor of her because we both went to PVA meetings (I usually do. She was there once or twice to announce something.), and that I believed everything Billy Garrett told me.

I like and respect Billy Garrett. He's a smart guy, knows a lot about local government, and works incredibly hard as county commissioner. But I've disagreed with him strongly and publicly. 

Commissioner Ben Rawson's political views differ strongly from mine. I didn't vote for him. I'm appalled by some of what he says, and how he says it, but he appears to listen to his constituents. 

Barack Obama seems a smart and caring fellow with an astonishingly good temperament for the Presidency; but I've disagreed strongly with him on many issues, notably the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and thought he relied too much on Wall Street types for advice on repairing our economy. I like that he's tried to avoid the pitfall of prejudging every foreign-policy situation based on ideology or a personal agenda; but recognize that such an approach can slip into uncertainty and lack of direction.

We're all imperfect. We're human. I try to listen to everyone with an open mind and make up my mind based on evidence. I still get things wrong sometimes.

Of course, some politicians make this hard. Reading Steve Pearce's recent op-ed about Rick Riscoria acting heroically in the World Trade Center fifteen years ago, I thought “I actually agree with Pearce about something!” Unfortunately, he segued into a partisan and misleading rant claiming that Obama created ISIS. Does he really not remember that the Bush administration lied about Iraq to start a war – and Congresspeople on both sides of the aisle, who should have known better, went along happily? I was disappointed, but not surprised, that instead of mourning our dead, Pearce turned a solemn subject into a dishonest bit of self-promotion.

And the temper of the times disfavors thoughtfulness. If you advocate better understanding between police and the communities they serve, you're labeled a cop-hater – even if you have friends in law enforcement and work with law enforcement officers every week. (Count me as one who thought it stupid and tasteless for Hillary to say that Donald's supporters were “deplorables.” Preferring Clinton to Trump doesn't require me to agree with all she says.)

I wish the paper could print this column without my name. Maybe we should read all newspaper columns without knowing who wrote them until we've finished reading. If we read the words, and assess the words, rather than spotting someone's name and going into attack mode, maybe we'd find some middle ground.

Think of it as working together to keep the stadium from falling down on both teams.

                                                          -30-

[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News and possibly other newspapers this morning, Sunday, 18 September, and on the newspaper's website (where someone has already advised me that I am a pathetic columnist who is destroying the county) as well as KRWG-TV's website.]

[None of the above means I don't plan to vote for Hillary Clinton, don't think Donald Trump poses a unique threat to our democracy, or don't hold to values that tend to emphasize social concerns over pure capitalism, freedom over conformity or repression, as well as candor, openness in government, and the like.  I just get uncomfortable dismissing whole groups of people, or ignoring them.  I actually believe in free speech as central to our democracy, and in free, fair, and open discussion of ideas as a way to get to truths which may not be quite what anyone thought they were before the discussion.] 

[Locally, we cannot afford to let differing political opinions become feuds.  Doesn't mean we shouldn't each fight for what we believe is right.  I sure do.  But why should someone's unappetizing beliefs blind me to the good that person does or the laughs we have in the midst of disagreeing -- or the fact that I may learn something from him or her?  That's why I found the duplicitous municipal recall effort so unfortunate.  It crossed some line between disagreeing on facts and courses and used flat-out lies and vicious tactics.  I feel the same about "attack ads" that try to win election by last-minute false and scurrilous newspaper ads.  But I still can't afford not to take my best shot at civil discourse with the people responsible for those.
I've seen a couple of recent examples of folks from different places on the political spectrum working together: after an employee in the County Clerk's Office committed crimes, Deputy City Clerk Scott Krahling reached out to Russell Allen and other Republicans to participate in a committee to look at procedures in the office and see whether additional safeguards might be usefully implemented; and a similar bipartisan committee has worked on getting out the vote.  Some of my Democratic friends understandably criticized that, but it was probably a sensible move.  In advocating a Detention Center Citizens Advisory Committee, I found that it was championed on the Commission by Billy Garrett, but Allen and other conservatives, who are generally skeptical of governments and in favor of citizens getting a look at things, also favored the creation of the committee.]