Superintendent Debbi Burdick said the results were unexpected.
"We have such dedicated teachers, our students are working hard and our community supports us. We would have expected our students to do better," she said. "We know our students can have higher achievement levels than they're showing here."
She said the school staff will reflect on what they can do differently.
"Along with other districts, one of the things we've given back to the state is soft capital funding, which should have been used for curriculum and textbooks, and our teachers have older materials in their classrooms. We'll start there."
So its not the teachers or the staff or the students, its the textbooks fault and the fault of the state for taking that money away. What happened to all that supplementing and professional development that you assured us was letting our students exceed the state standards? Didn't you tell the board that in Cave Creek Unified we teach to the state standards. Well, while you may be meeting that goal, students in surrounding districts seems to be more proficient than ours and there certainly is no evidence of our students exceeding the state standards. We will wait for the Stanford 10 test results for more commentary on that.
This of course won't stop the district from spending 100s of thousands this year on 'workbooks', assessment software, online learning, etc... Maybe we should ask the PTOs for money for textbooks instead of Smartboards and maybe we should focus like a laser on academic achievement and not so much on program diversity.
Class size is the biggest problem. I watched it causing problems with my kids and got out while I could. I live somewhere entirely different now where they are still committed to keeping class size under 25 students.
ReplyDeleteI know that some argue that class size doesn't matter, but speaking from personal experience, it does. Yes, classes can be controlled and taught at the larger levels, but there needs to be much tighter control to prevent things from spinning into chaos. Students are less encouraged to ask questions and less discussion as a class works. It is more of a lecture hall than anything.
Is that really where she would start with the students....why was her contract extended?????? This is a joke and why we are moving our children....
ReplyDeleteIf you have children scheduled to attend Cactus Shadows or Sonoran Trails in August I urge you to view the newly posted bus routes. One route is over 1 hour and 20 minutes. There are a total of fifteen routes with over an hour commute time. Have you sat in a so-called air-conditioned bus in August and September lately? One bus has 106 students scheduled to ride. One bus has 17 students. Who in the world planned this fiasco??? I thought the maximum bus ride was going to be 1 hour 12 minutes. So much for for that calculation Burdick. Keep in mind that these are estimated times and most likely will be longer when actual bus routes begin especially since quite a few of the stops take less than a minute according to the schedule. I'd like to see that in action.
ReplyDeleteTeacher professional development has been going by the wayside the past three years. I'm sure they'll say it is "budget cuts" but the programs they are choosing to keep/the curricular fads they are chasing after, the poor leadership from the top down (and some of the recent principal hires) have caused this downward trend.
ReplyDeleteWhen teachers are not treated like professionals, parents are discouraged from involvement and poor leadership leads to bad morale, it all ends up leading down a road of frustrated, unmotivated, angry teachers who, though extremely capable, are now tired and beat up.
No one works to their best under those scenarios. Yes, some of it is state caused, but a lot of it is really bad leadership all around that is leading to bad decisions and great frustration on the part of teachers, students and parents alike.
Why the board renewed Dr. Burdick's contract while patting themselves on the back for making the "hard choice" to close a school is beyond me. They haven't yet seen the fallout (which at my rough count is close to 200+ students lost on a variety of grade levels, not just 5th & 6th) from their choice of school or their choice to "save" all-day kindergarten at the cost of (at least if you look at the test scores and accomplishments) the better of the middle schools. Why they closed a middle school when recent demographics have been showing a growth at the middle/high school level and a leveling off or lowering of growth in the elementary level is beyond me...but that decision is made and clearly, by their self evaluations, the board is proud of that decision.
Oh well. Not worth the arguing. It is what it is and it is very sad to see. I just wonder, now that they have extended Dr. Burdick's contract, who is going to take the "fall" for the falling test scores and the huge loss of students.
PS: Though I haven't always agreed with Susan Clancy,the board self evaluations are really pathetic in how they continually criticise her behavior when others on the board made public statements before votes and, some would argue, did not do their due diligence in school closure research before the vote. Oh well...it seems CCUSD never gets the leadership it needs/deserves.
Next time you might try linking to the actual article for better context. Debbi Burdick's quote was directly related to the Science Aims.
ReplyDeleteDear July 19, 2010 8:57 AM,
ReplyDeleteIt is linked, click on the word 'comment'.
WOW, will the defending of incompetent leadership never stop. How can we expect to get great leaders in the schools when the leadership is so poor in the District office. Frankly, I don't always agree with Susan Clancy, but she seems to be the only consistent reasonable voice on the Board (janet seems to try). The rest of them are too busy sucking up to Dr. Burdick and her team they are not looking out for our kid's best interest. it is so obvious, it is sad that we all helped them get elected. That will not happen again. Look at their hidden decisions. I wish the parents that are left in the District would open their eyes and start researching agenda items and not listening to principals who rally the troops to sell something the District office wants them to sell. (ie all day kg parade).
ReplyDeleteWhy not simply fire everyone within the layer of administration -- Burdick and others -- and put all hiring/curriculum decisions in the hands of the principals of schools?
ReplyDeleteWhy do we need these educrats anyway?
Make every school an island of responsibility and get rid of the district. That's the only solution that can possibly work. Let a parent board, teachers and the principal do their magic without the meddling and politicizing of the administration and school board.
Burdick is the worst thing to happen to this district. Consider that she was never recruited or chosen for her position. She was thrust upon us by her predecessor, who was smart enough to leave as she did and stuck it to the district by giving us this self-absorbed, self-centered, egotistical fool who can't see the world or the future past her fake tanned nose!
ReplyDeleteFIRE BURDICK!!!! START THE CAMPAIGN!!!!
How are the comments by July 21, 2010 7:50 PM not defamatory?
ReplyDeleteHard to take this column seriously when you allow such dribble to be published. Hard to take it seriously when anyone that actually knows Burdick knows that she is anything but self-absorbed, self-centered or egotistical.
Also, if anybody hasn't noticed, this is Arizona. Why would anybody believe that Burdick has to take the time to go to a tanning booth? Where would she even find the time with the amount that she works (whether people like her or not, there is no question that she works nearly round the clock on her job).
Burdick is the worst thing to happen to this district in the last 12 years. It's mostly because of how she interprets her leadership. She does not know how to handle direct conflict. She wavers in the face of hardship and disappointment. She is subversive in how she gets rid of and appoints administrative leaders.
ReplyDeleteLook at the track record:
1) Why was Ann Orlando's contract non-renewed before DAMS was officially closed by the district administration and board? As the senior administrator of the district, she should have been given the top post at Sonoran Trails and Bill Dolezal should have been non-renewed or reassigned. Not that I'm an Ann Orlando supporter, but if Burdick did believe in what's right and fair or even decent, seniority should have been taken into consideration here.
2) Speaking of Dolezal, why was he "floated" throughout the district before he was "given" the principalship at Sonoran Trails Middle School? First he was the "administrator on assignment" when he was first hired, then he was "given" the assistant principal position at DAMS, then he was "given" the athletic director position at CSHS, then he was "given" the principalship at STMS. What happened to interviewing?
3) Why was Roger Hill, a high school administrator with no elementary experience and a record of showing questionable behavior as an administrator, given the principalship at DWES?
4) What about the "revolving door" of the principalship at CSHS and the assistant principalship at both CSHS and DAMS? How many principals and assistant principals went through those positions? How many administrators stayed no longer than a year or two in those positions and why?
5) Speaking of "disappearing administrators", why do they leave or are mysteriously non-renewed? Why exactly was Dr. Gaye Leo removed? Why did Sid Bailey leave? Why wasn't Donna Lewis made the permanent principal at CSHS instead of moving Steve Bebee? What happened to all the assistant principals at CSHS and DAMS?
6) Why was DSES made the core knowledge school when the principal at BMES, Ellie Gaines, one of the leaders of the core knowledge movement in this state?
7) Why are administrators now "given" positions in the district without having to go through an interview process? Look at all the administrators who have been "given" positions in CCUSD since Burdick was put into power. Steve Bebee goes from STMS to CSHS, Jana Miller is appointed into Burdick's old position, Hill is assigned to DWES, Jackie Beazley is given an assistant principal job at the high school after spending only a month after returning to the classroom, Dolezal "floats" all over the place before he's "given" STMS. Don't staff and the parent community have a say anymore in who's hired?
Then again, maybe administrator positions are "given" since Burdick was "given" her position by the previous superintendent. Perhaps Burdick knows these people are like her in that they would have never gotten these jobs if they went through the interview process.
FIRE BURDICK!!!! START THE CAMPAIGN!!!
I can't answer every one of your questions, but I will give you the few answers that I know.
ReplyDeleteBill Dolezal had been at STMS at one time before his present assignment (and I believe before his job in another district before returning to CCUSD). He was adored and to my knowledge there was no hesitation by STMS parents to having him brought in.
Sid Bailey left I'm sure for many reasons. However, it was no secret that he was ridiculed, called out at Governing Board meetings by a current board member, and a previous board member.
Donna Lewis did not want the position. She took it temporarily and was well liked. However, she did not want to permanently stay at CSHS. I believe that she stayed a little longer than she originally intended because she was asked to.
I think that there were parents at BMES that wanted Ellie Gaines because of her core knowledge background. I also believe that there were many parents at BMES who are anti core knowledge. I think that the majority of the school (as represented by site council, PTO) did not feel it was appropriate.
Those are the only questions that I can handle. Remember that when Burdick came on she was dealing with a situation where numerous Principals had to be replaced very quickly. While I'm sure there are headhunters who are sorry they missed out on fees, there is nothing wrong with promoting from within. Plus, with all of the positions that had to be filled quickly, it is not surprising that people would be shifted around once things calmed down a little.
I live in a top school district in the east now. That is how appointments are made around here, and there is much less parent involvement in the decisions than CCUSD allows.
Well then explain her "tan" in the dead of winter. I sure hope it’s a tanning salon tan because if she has enough time to lounge by the pool to maintain that oh so orangey glow than she certainly could not have enough time to do her job properly.
ReplyDeleteShe leads by non-leadership. That is why we have Mandarin Chinese proposed at the elementary level and no such offering at the high school. She relies on other people doing the real work. Obviously we have some gung ho parents and teachers at the elementary level willing to jump on every new curriculum band wagon at the drop of a hat and she by her non-leadership has allowed it. It is truly a disgrace that the same effort hasn't been given to the basics of math and science at the elementary level.
If she had been doing her job she would have put an end to this menagerie of programs at the elementary level and realized that the amount of elective offerings at the high school level (where the students should have those choices) is painfully low and that another language offering may have been a great idea at that campus. Instead we are hearing about yet another "program" at the elementary level.
I find it utterly disgusting that she allowed money to be spent on this while simultaneously closing DAMS. The only thing she has been successful at is dividing our district into mini clusters of parents, students and teachers with their own agendas of saving their own programs and no cohesive effort to do what is best for the district as a whole.
If you thoroughly prepare your elementary students with the BASICS of curriculum first and ease into "choices" at the middle school level you will have classes of students prepared for those choices and an established base of knowledge to build on. Innovative and well taught electives and "programs" at the high school level that add and expand on those taught at the middle school level will be a draw for students in surrounding districts. You won’t need all of this money spent on flashy “new” methods of teaching. You just need a cohesive comprehensive curriculum for all schools in the district. The draw will be the test scores of our district and the preparedness of our students for high school and college. After all it is about “our students” isn’t it?
The current train of thought is upside down and backwards. How many of these students coming to CCUSD from outside the district for elementary level "programs" will stay through high school if we lack the same attention to choice at all campuses? How much of the time that should be spent on the basics at the elementary level is being sacrificed because of too many curriculum "choices"? By the test scores it appears that our district puts math and science behind horsemanship, Mandarin Chinese, Spanish Immersion and Core Knowledge. I think that is a disservice to the students and the community.
My guess is not very many of those students who are initially drawn by shiny new programs will stay if our district isn't able to demonstrate that these children are getting the basics of reading, writing, arithmetic, science and history as well. The proof is in the pudding and so far it’s just looking like expensive mush.
Golfer's tan.
ReplyDelete