Free trips not worth the price

H-L Smacks Holliday and Young

Leaves out an important fact

This morning the Herald-Leader editorial board weighed in on the recent Pearson scandal. Good. As the editorial points out, there are problems with the appearance, if not fact, of public officials getting too cozy with private companies who stand to gain millions through public contracts. But the facts are important. If the public is to make a reasoned judgment about the issue, they ought to have them all.

KASA's Wayne Young recently defended Lu Young (no relation so far as I know) in H-L saying that it was "both troubling and telling that the Herald-Leader would reprint a story from the New York Times regarding Jessamine County Schools superintendent Lu Young taking a professional trip to Australia without even making the effort to contact her for a response." Wayne complained about several of the facts being left out of the story, but for some reason did not mention that Lu voted against Pearson. Surely, that matters to some degree.

a more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2012/01/08/2020488/jan-8-letters-to-the-editor.html#storylink=cpy

The H-L's lead confirmed the editors' respect for Young - right before they disrespected her.

Similar to the H-L, KSN&C also reprinted the New York Times articles that originally raised the issue. We were criticized by a few folks who objected to our reprinting the story without jumping through all of the  professional journalistic hoops. Fair enough. We didn't. But when Lu Young contacted KSN&C to make sure we knew that she never voted for Pearson, and could prove it, we felt honor-bound to include it in our coverage and we posted the Jessamine Journal article that outlined the facts. We did what I imagined a professional journalist would do. We understand from Young that she sent the same information to the Times and the Herald-Leader. So far, the Times has stood by their story without any mention, but more surprisingly, the H-L completely ignored it in today's editorial.

If it's true that private companies might use undue influence to gain the favor of public officials - and it is - then it's important to point out - with respect to Young at least - that it didn't happen that way. After her fancy trip, Young voted for a different company. It doesn't absolve her, but it certainly lowers the degree of concern over her integrity.

To know pertinent facts about a case, but then to knowingly leave them out of the piece because including them weakens one's argument, is a questionable standard of journalism. Sound ethical practices of our public officials, and the reporters who cover them, both matter.

This from the Herald-Leader:

Lu Young, superintendent of schools in Jessamine County, is a respected professional who was named Kentucky's superintendent of the year in 2011. So, to many of her admirers here in Kentucky, it was a surprise and a shame her name appeared at the top of a story in the first section of The New York Times.

It was not because of her accomplishments as an educator but to recount a trip she took that illustrates the ethical muddy waters stirred up by the extremely close relationship between Pearson Education Inc. and the Pearson Foundation.

The story, reprinted in the Herald-Leader, evoked defensive praise for Young and scorn of the Times and its reporting. There's no reason to believe Young did anything wrong, but criticizing the messenger won't make this go away. The suspicion of unethical dealing will persist until educators stop taking trips paid for by companies that stand to make money selling products and services to their institutions.

Briefly, Young went to Australia with other educators on a trip organized by an education nonprofit and paid for by the Pearson Foundation. A few months later, back in Kentucky, she participated in a panel that interviewed executives of education companies, including Pearson, that were bidding to run Kentucky's testing program.

Although its bid was $2 million higher than the low bidder, CTB/McGraw Hill, Pearson got the contract.

The Times had reported earlier that Kentucky Education Commissioner Terry Holliday had taken similar trips, to China and Brazil, after his department approved the $57-million contract with Pearson.

Pearson protests that the foundation is simply a way of returning money to education and that educators benefit from meeting colleagues from other countries and seeing what they're doing.

No argument here that our education system can gain from a broader view. But the links between the two Pearsons are too close for comfort. Here are some of the connections that have been reported:

1. The company controls the foundation's board of directors;
2. At least one person is an officer of both the company and the foundation;
3. They have the same address.
4. Although Pearson Education executives have attended the education conferences subsidized by Pearson Foundation money, no representatives of other education companies have been identified on the lists of attendees.

We make no case that either Young or Holliday did anything wrong. Both say the trips had no bearing on the contract.

This would have been a nice place to mention that Young voted for Measured Progress, not Pearson.

But, this is the thing: The contract wasn't let solely on price, nor should it have been. Educational testing is a complex business, so there's a significant element of judgment involved in evaluating the bidder's services.

No less an expert than Jack Abramoff, the disgraced former lobbyist in Washington, explained last week in Frankfort, how judgment can become clouded by gifts and hospitality.

The (Louisville) Courier-Journal's account of Abramoff's talk includes this:

"Lawmakers never believe they will be bought, Abramoff added. But he warned that lobbyists become successful by building relationships and that gifts or contributions are designed to take advantage of a person's natural instincts to express gratitude. 'When somebody does something good for you, you are going to have to feel that way in your soul, and when you do I would hold that that is the problem,' he said,"

We'll go even a step further. Even if a cozy relationship doesn't lead to a problem, the appearance of the relationship will lead to suspicion that a problem does or could exist. Our ethics laws are intended not only to avoid corruption but the appearance of it because both destroy public confidence in government.

Nothing is more important to Kentucky than public education, which relies on public support. These trips aren't worth the price in public confidence. Educators should stop taking them.

Since the selection of Pearson was ultimately made possible by the input of KDE staff, H-L could do a public service by drilling into the specific issues of how the KDE contract came to be awarded to Pearson after two subgroups thought a different company could provide better service. Who voted for that?

It is the state legislature's failure to adequately fund the changes it demands in law that makes this kind of situation more likely to occur than not. The commissioner is essentially left with two choices: fail to implement the law, or go find the money to implement it - anywhere other than Frankfort. The net effect is that the federal government and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation drive education policy in Kentucky because it's where the money is - and there is no counter-balance for those who think that corporate education reform is off track.

H-L Commends FCPS Board

This from the Herald-Leader:

Open search process, solid choice

A lot has changed in the Fayette County Public Schools in the eight years since the school board smuggled in a candidate for superintendent under an umbrella to hide his identity from the public.

The search that just culminated with the hiring of Tom Shelton was as commendable for its openness as that earlier search was memorable for its silliness — and its unfortunate outcome: the winner resigned after just eight months.

Process does matter. It matters a lot when selecting the leader of a public institution. So, before moving on to the next chapter, the board deserves a shout out for the way this search was managed.

Not only did the board make each of the three finalists available to the public, it actively enlisted a cross section of Lexington — from bankers and home builders to members of the arts and faith communities — to meet with and evaluate each of the three candidates. And then took their impressions seriously.

Fayette PTA officials, as well as school district employees, got to participate in the vetting. And the public submitted more than 300 questions or comments.

The board also studied student outcomes and teacher morale in each of the finalists' districts.

Despite the board's diligence, there is bound to be some disappointment. The runners-up — Elaine Farris, Clark County superintendent, and Lu Young, Jessamine County superintendent — were strong candidates and have lots of friends and supporters in Lexington.

Shelton, superintendent in Daviess County, was a protege of outgoing superintendent Stu Silberman, which will raise some eyebrows. Shelton, who began his career in business as an accountant before earning a doctorate in education, has an admittedly different personality and leadership style than Silberman and has established himself as a successful superintendent.

While we've seen no indication that the process was slanted in his or any other candidate's favor, Shelton has to earn the trust and respect of Lexington's educators, students, parents, taxpayers and the board that unanimously hired him.

Having been chosen through an open process in which stakeholders had the chance to participate gives him a leg up on gaining that trust and respect. We wish him well.

Faint Praise

Merlene Davis at the Herald-Leader reflected on the superintendency of Stu Silberman in her column today. It was a curiosity.

We don't know who the candidates are - or who the new superintendent will actually be - but Davis has gone all Biblical on us, rallying the troops to get ready for battle. Just what she's fighting for is much less clear.

Does Davis hope for a superintendent who will acknowledge the achievement gap? I'm fairly certain we can find a few thousand candidates who meet that standard.

Or is this the beginning of a quest for a superintendent who has a record of closing all achievement gaps somewhere else? I'm fairly certain we won't find any candidates who meet that standard.

Is Davis really calling for someone who is empathetic enough to reassure the African American community - and in the process allow community leadership to return to its well-deserved rest?

She says her reasons are "selfish" but I'll be darned if I know what they are. It sounds like she just wants to be treated with respect. And if that's it, I agree fully that every member of the community deserves no less. But her supporting rationale paints a confusing picture - to me at least.

One way to read the piece would lead one to believe that...

• Silberman's retirement was shocking and very disappointing because he made the closing the academic achievement gap a priority.
• He hired the "right" people and got rid of the wrong people.
• He enjoyed the support of the the community, businesses and even the local government
• ...was interested in all kids.
• He understood and acknowledged the achievement gap
• ...but he didn't do much to close it and monitoring it is was not a high priority.
• His actions and results were disappointing.
• There are still too many black boys in detention and special education.
  
• There are far too many students dropping out of school ill prepared.
• But Silberman acknowledges his disappointment.
• So now the community must awaken from its rest and prepare to grapple for the right person to lead this school system.
• The right candidate should be accepting of nothing less than excellence and have a proven record of closing the achievement gap and not just talk a good game.

Really? Is that the story?

If this was meant to explain the pacification of previously outspoken education advocates, OK. But it's not a very compelling story.

Was it was meant to signal the public that Fayette County is ready to up-the-ante and that the next superintendent would have to do more than make acknowledgements? If so, OK, but I think Silberman's supporters should regard his administration as a lesson on how hard the work is. It takes far more than rhetoric and school-based programs to even the playing field for our most disadvantaged students. Those things are necessary, but insufficient.

Was the sabre-rattling imagery really appropriate given the progress achieved by Silberman and many other folks in Fayette County well beyond the superintendent?

Do we simply want the next superintendent to continue to kick central office butts?

Somebody explain this to me, because I don't get it.

This from Merlene Davis at H-L:

For purely selfish reasons, I was saddened to learn Fayette County Schools Superintendent Stu Silberman was calling it quits.

I think a lot of folks should be saddened.

Instead of having a schools chief who has demonstrated a belief that our focus should be about children, who has cleaned out dead weight from Central Office and who encouraged personnel to return phone calls within 24 hours, we now don't know who we're going to get.

I don't think I have the strength to go back to the way it once was...

...when Silberman acknowledged that black, poor and disabled children were getting short shrift in Fayette County and promised to change that culture, I wanted to believe him. So did others who were battle-worn and tired.

We knew, however, that folks don't just willingly give up the time-honored right to
be promoted to Central Office — a place with no innovation and no desire to address difficult problems — where they could then wait to die...

State school board to discuss uniform content, graduation requirements

This from Jim Warren at the Herald-Leader:

The Kentucky Board of Education will tackle several key items related to plans for statewide educational improvements during two days of meetings in Frankfort starting Wednesday.

Board members are to consider steps aimed at ensuring that course content is uniform across the state, review minimum requirements for high school graduation, streamline the state system's required program of studies, and consider the possibility of so-called "end of course assessments" for Kentucky high school students.

Kentucky Education Commissioner Terry Holliday says the wide-ranging session could help establish the direction of education during the next several years.

"It's mainly about setting the path for implementing Senate Bill 1," Holliday said.

SB1 is the reform measure that the Kentucky General Assembly passed last winter to establish a new statewide student testing program and provide more in-depth curriculum requirements in an effort to upgrade education statewide...

Tempest in a Teacup: Plus, Robertson and Conway Agree, Everybody Else was the Problem.

President Barack Obama delivered his much debated, nationally televised/webcast speech this afternoon and one wonders in retrospect what all the fuss was about.

Hat tip to the Detroit Free Press:

Among Obama's most vocal critics was Florida Republican Party Chair Jim Greer who claimed to be appalled that taxpayer dollars were being used "to spread President Obama's socialist ideology." And he's from Florida ! where American taxpayers have spent tons of money on bailouts of Florida's decimated real estate market and on Florida banks. A large percentage of Florida's population depends on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - yet Greer denounces socialism? Any chance the rest of us can get that money back?

But it turns out Greer was only scoring political points and he wasn't so principled after all.

The Reaction

This from The Guardian:

Schools across the US went ahead with a boycott of a broadcast by President Barack Obama today in spite of many rightwing critics rowing back at the last minute from a campaign accusing him of socialist indoctrination...

Having seen the advance copy, some of the most vocal critics such as Jim Greer, the Republican party chairman in Florida, who had accused Obama of trying to spread "socialist ideology", backed off. Greer said: "It's a good speech. It encourages kids to stay in school and the importance of education."

The call for the boycott was started by rightwing television and radio commentators.

There was a slight embarrassment on the part of mainstream Republicans, who initially joined in but were today distancing themselves. Among Republicans supportive of Obama's right to make the speech were Newt Gingrich, the Republican former House speaker, who told NBC that there were other presidents had established such a precedent. "President Reagan did it, President [George] HW Bush did it … It's a good speech, I recommend it to everybody if you have any doubts."

This from the Wall Street Journal:

Obama Address: A Tempest in a Teacup

This from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Obama Spoke. Nobody Died.

...I talked to many media colleagues about the rancor toward the Obama school address and none of us could remember anything similar when we covered members of Congress or senators speaking to school groups. National political candidates have even spoken to local high schools with none of these accusations of indoctrination or political posturing. Indeed, some rock groups have gone into schools without objection....

Meanwhile on WLAP,

Leland talks with the Chairman of the KY GOP, Steve Robertson & former Lexington Public School Principal Richard Day about Obama's Speech to school kids.

I essentially said,

By turning an innocuous little message encouraging students to do well in school - something we can all agree on - into a communist plot, the Republican’s have effectively scored political points – at the same time President Obama does something we should all admire.

I must assume political points is all you were after…because it’s hard for me to imagine you were really concerned that some mass hypnosis was about to overtake our school children.

I mean, it makes for good radio chat fodder…but...If your kid can’t listen to a 20-minute message from the president of the United States about working hard in school – without being galvanized into unbridled communism – then you’re just not doing your job as a parent.

I argued that the use of the word creepy - lowered the political discourse and was pleased to hear him segue to the word "odd."

In American democracy If we don’t show some level of personal respect for each other then we can’t debate the issues. It becomes more about personalities and less about objective facts.

In his conversation with Conway, Robertson said,

"I don't have a problem with an American president addressing students about the importance of staying in school and working hard" but I do have a problem with the Department of Education...preparing a curriculum with an Obama focus. ... focus "was to raise awareness of Obama as an individual" ...

Conway: "One blog in particular accused both you and I of taking this term creepy, and they were saying that denoted pedophilia ... That thought, personally, never crossed my mind. Creepy, to me is a statement that is universally used when you have a vague sense of distrust"...

"That's why I used the word. I don't know exactly why you did because it's just by chance that we both used the same word."

Robertson: "Well it certainly is, and I guess that shows great minds think alike. I read that blog as well, and you know, a haunted house is also creepy. And you know, I found it odd that the Herald-Leader through their editorial board... seemed to take their entire premise for that editorial piece out of that blog that you mentioned." But you know it's really discouraging, when you try and involve parents in the education of their children, and you try and have a public dialogue, that institutions like the Herald-Leader and their liberal editorial board have to run to racism; have to run to assertions of pedophilia, which I find creepy... and that anyone that disagrees politically is assassinated publicly

Conway: The message I'd like to send out to people is don't back down because if you back down, this kind of crap wins....

So let's get this straight. Robertson's original statement in the Herald-Leader went like this:

[The] Chairman of the Republican Party of Kentucky, said Obama's desire to speak directly to America's schoolchildren is "very concerning and kind of creepy." Robertson said the speech was an effort on behalf of the president "to circumvent parents" and "gain direct access to our children."

And now he would have us believe what he really meant was creepy....like a haunted house?! ...because he was only trying to get parents involved in their children's schools?!

Readers can judge that for themselves, but my BS meter went off.

Of course, there is still the problem of the Herald-Leader lying to us all the time. How can we trust the news reporting of a paper with such a biased editorial board? This became an issue recently when I picked up H-L's reporting of Conway's on-air comments and wrote, "Conway advised parents to keep their children at home." Amy Wilson originally reported,

Originally, Conway said, he advised concerned listeners to either take their children out of school and read the Constitution to them instead or attend school with them that day and watch what teachers did "because it's important for parents to know what goes on in the schools."

Conway denied saying it and asked KSN&C to correct it's reporting, so we posted everyone's comments for the reader's to judge. But on Labor Day Monday, Conway was not on the air live. Rather, WLAP replayed his original broadcast from their "best of" series and I got to hear his comments for myself.

Conway very clearly said he would "applaud any parent" who kept their children home. Go to the tape. It's there.

Turns out the Herald-Leader news reporting was accurate.

We've Got Mail

I picked up a note from WLAP's Leland Conway on Facebook this morning asking for a correction on my recent "Robertson and Conway: Giving Conservatism a Bad Name" piece.

I had written,

"Conway and Robertson are concerned that such an event might bring partisan politics into the schoolhouse, so they decided to politicize the event. Conway advised parents to keep their children at home."

I based my statement on a Herald-Leader report, that

Originally, Conway said, he advised concerned listeners to either take their children out of school and read the Constitution to them instead or attend school with them that day and watch what teachers did "because it's important for parents to know what goes on in the schools."

Then from Conway, this congenial note:

"I hope this email finds you well. I was writing to see if you would please correct an attribution you made to me in your column. I did not recommend people keep their children home. In fact, I recommended that they go to school with thier [sic] children and participate in the process. I did say, however, that I am supportive of parents rights and would support any parent's decision not to have their child participate."

Readers can judge if I got it wrong, based on H-L's report. But since I wasn't listening at the time whatever comments were made, I'll take Conway at his word.

Then he invited me on his program, WLAP-630's The Pulse (3-6pm)...for a spanking one supposes.

That will depend on how much work I can get done this weekend...but for today, it's a road trip to Cincinnati to support the CATS.

C-J Smacks Holliday; H-L Channels KSN&C; Obama not the First; WH to release text; Other reactions

This from the Courier-Journal:

A bad decision

In our hyper-heated political times, this inspirational talk is being turned into a major controversy, with some parents demanding that their children not be subjected to the President's message.

How sad it is that we have come to the point in this country where the President of all the people cannot talk to children about taking responsibility and working hard. Could the outrageous demonstrations of hate and prevarication that have dominated health care forums this summer now move to the schoolroom?

Kentucky Education Commissioner Terry Holliday has knuckled under to parental requests and told school officials that they must provide alternative activities for children of the objectors. This isn't just sad; it's outrageous.

The President of the United States — be he Barack Obama, Dwight Eisenhower or Theodore Roosevelt — ought to be able to speak words of encouragement to young people without being subject to parental censorship. Have we become so splintered in this nation that we can't unite over something as fundamental as the subject Mr. Obama will discuss? We hope Mr. Holliday has the good sense to reverse this bad decision.

This from the Herald-Leader:

Message from the president

The president of the United States will urge the nation's youth to work hard in school, set educational goals and take responsibility for their learning.

Unless you're getting a paycheck from the Republican Party or for trashing Barack Obama, there's no reason to see anything sinister about this.

If anything, Obama should be thanked for using his bully pulpit and popularity with youth to communicate the value of education and persistence.

The right-wing backlash speaks volumes about Obama's detractors. The ranters are wound up after a season of red-faced anger, lies about health care and guns displayed at public events.

They go beyond the pale, though, by saying the nation's children need protection from our president's words.

What do they fear? That in a 15-minute speech Obama can hypnotize the nation's youth into forgetting everything their parents ever taught them and ... what? Do their homework?

It's especially repugnant that Kentucky Republican Party chairman Steve Robertson uses imagery associated with pedophilia — "circumvent parents . . . gain direct access to our children . . . creepy" — to demonize Obama. Robertson plays on the fear of black men, an old and ugly racial stereotype, and he should be ashamed...

Susan weighs in at Prichard:

The president and the children

I wish President Reagan had thought of an annual opening message and every president since had followed his example. It is not just an opportunity for a president can give voice to our shared national respect for education. It's an opportunity for the students to experience our shared national respect for the leaders chosen through our democratic process, including those for whom we (or our parents) did not vote.

Turns out...Reagan did. So we should shine a little light on this from PolitiFact:

Barack Obama is not the first president to address school children.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan urged the nation's principals to allow their students to watch a Sept. 8 address on the importance of education from President Barack Obama...

We rated that claim Pants on Fire! ...

President George H.W. Bush gave an address to schools nationwide in 1991, from a junior high school in Washington, D.C. News reports from the time said the White House hoped that the address would be shown at schools nationwide, and Bush began his remarks by saying he was talking to "millions" of students "in classrooms all across the country."

You can read Bush's complete remarks via the Web site of his presidential library...

You may have guessed this already, but news reports from the time indicate that Democrats criticized Bush for giving the speech.

"The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Rep. Richard Gephardt, then the Democratic majority leader in the House of Representatives."And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'" ...

Republicans, though, defended the right of the president to address students. "Why is it political for the president of the United States to discuss education?" asked Newt Gingrich, who was then the House Republican whip. "It was done at a nonpolitical site and was beamed to a nonpolitical audience. . . . They wanted to reach the maximum audience with the maximum effect to improve education." ...

We also found that Ronald Reagan took questions from high school students at the White House in 1986, and the question-and-answer session was broadcast nationally.

Reagan urged the students to stay in school and say no to drugs, but he also discussed overtly political matters, such as national defense funding, nuclear disarmament and -- in suprising policy detail -- taxes. (Read Reagan's complete remarks.)

This from Politics K-12:

Flap Continues: Rep. John Kline Asks Obama to Release His Remarks

Rep. John Kline, the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, sent a letter to the White House asking President Barack Obama to publicly release the text of his back-to-school address to kids, to be delivered next week. (According to this Washington Post story, Obama already had planned to do just that). UPDATE: And indeed, the White House said today that the text of the speech will be available on Monday at whitehouse.gov.

As you may know, some Texas districts have expressed qualms about letting kids listen, because of language in one of the lesson plans accompanying the speech that gave students suggestions for how they could "help" the president, prompting claims that the speech would politically indoctrinate kids...

And this from Justin at EdJurist:

The President's Speech to Students and the Craziness that Ensued

Okay ... approaching the edge of sanity today with the public outcry against the President's upcoming address to students returning to school. This whole thing, the politicization of this event by some, makes me a little sick to my stomach....the common trend I am seeing from administrators today is to a) either don't interrupt the schedule for it, or b) allow students to opt out. I am seeing some administrators on the various listservs I belong to requiring their students to see it - and I commend them for it - but they are the exception. The safe route here is to permit students to opt out. In fact, the new Commissioner here in KY has said that schools need to "provide alternatives." So, as long as you are providing an alternative (hello, study hall) to students or parents that are on the edge of the deep end, then you school administrators should be fine.

This, too, shall pass.

There was plenty of reaction in letters section of the Herald-Leader as well.

This from Jeff Worley in H-L:

Incited perhaps by WLAP 630-AM's conservative talk-jock Leland Conway, who called such a direct address to students "creepy," 25 to 50 parents phoned the Fayette County school district to complain about the president's noontime Tuesday speech to their kids. What are these parents afraid of?

Kentucky GOP chief Steve Robertson knows: The talk is an effort by Obama "to circumvent parents" and "gain direct access to our children."

Yes. Can't you just hear the president now (in a sonorous, hypnotic tone): "Now you kids be sure when you go home tonight to tell your mommies and daddies to support Uncle Obama's health-care plan, OK?"

Fueled by unfounded fear, parents who refuse to allow their kids to view this presidential talk are depriving their children of an exciting, unique and historical event.

This from Dave Woods:

Please tell me that the reporter incorrectly quoted Steve Robertson, Kentucky GOP chair, in the Thursday article regarding President Barack Obama's speech to the nation's children.

Having been an educator for 30-plus years in Kentucky, I am starting to realize why some children come to school with unfounded fears, prejudice and a reluctance to think thoughts other than what has been said to them by authoritative figures in their young lives.

"Kind of scary," an effort "to circumvent parents," and "gain direct access to our children" are statements that frighten me in relation to the president of the United States speaking to children.

Please have Robertson announce the candidates he is endorsing so I can vote for the opponents!

And from Tom Ringley:

So, it appears that the official Republican talking-points word for President Barack Obama's address to schoolchildren is "creepy."

You have to hand it to them. Republicans may despise every good and decent thing this country has ever stood for, but they have the best message discipline of anyone since the American Communist Party of the 1930s and 1940s.

And Dan Wu knows satire:

I couldn't agree more with Steve Robertson of the state GOP and talk-show host Leland Conway. An adult speaking directly to children without their parents present is very creepy. This is why I attend school everyday with my daughter; that way she's never alone with other adults trying to educate her.

As for the content of President Barack Obama's speech, I happen to have a copy of the agenda right here so parents can decide if they want their kids exposed to it.

Barack Hussein Obama will begin the broadcast with a reading from the Koran, followed by a visual lesson on gay marriage using two Ken dolls. Then he will decree a ban on slingshots and water guns then institute a tax on milk and Tater Tots. He will then conclude with a singalong to the socialist anthem The Internationale.

As you can see, conservatives' fears are well founded, as always.

Apologies for the fonts. I used Firefox on this post. It's a lot easier than IE is some ways but I'm having real difficulty controlling the font sizes.

Enabling Reform

It must have been difficult for the Herald-Leader’s editorial board to pen comments critical of Superintendent Stu Silberman. But they did it.

Oh sure, they softened and buried it as much as they could; but criticized nonetheless. “[T]he district must do a better job of evaluating employees… [E]mployees who aren't accurately graded can't really be expected to improve,” they wrote.

This assessment, while accurate, deflects attention away from Silberman who was clearly aware and supported Peggy Petrilli every step of the way. The editorial board is only sorry the judge didn’t allow the defense to pile on more than it did. Having helped build the pedestal from which Petrilli fell, the Herald-Leader would now like us to keep Silberman on his.

In H-L’s mind Judge James Ishmael erred by restricting evidence in the case to only what was known by the parties at the moment Peggy Petrilli resigned. They suggest that by not allowing the jury to hear evidence from a district report generated eight months later – a report that the plaintiffs were not allowed discovery on - the judge prevented jurors from hearing that Petrilli’s “academic successes were built on questionable and possibly fraudulent practices.”

But H-L fails to point out that this restriction was implemented with the full consent of the defense. In a June 23rd pre-trial hearing, where the ground rules for the case were discussed, school board attorney John McNeill told the judge,

“I don’t disagree with the report’s contents itself being off the table. Now, there were attachments to the report that dealt with matters prior in time to August 23, 2007…I think are obviously relevant. But, no, I think the court understands that issue well and I think the court’s tracking the right way on that.”

And by allowing those attachments, the jury heard plenty about Petrilli’s shortcomings including the testing allegations. In fact, Silberman told the jury that following a parent meeting on August 22nd the district reported allegations that Petrilli was cheating on the test to KDE.

Consistent with that same thinking, Ishmael’s focus on the moment of resignation gave the defense its biggest advantage in the form of jury Question #1:

“Do you believe from the evidence that the Plaintiff, Peggy Petrilli, voluntarily resigned from her position as Principal of Booker T Washington Academy on August 23rd, 2007?”

The jury answered “Yes,” and the trial was over without any other considerations.

H-L incredibly laments that “Superintendent Stu Silberman had no inkling of the irregularities that would later be discovered.” Silberman may not have always known in advance, or the extent of problems, but what he did know about administrative irregularities at Booker T could fill a book. Soon after that meeting, School Board Attorney Brenda Allen advised Silberman to suspend Petrilli, but he refused.

No inkling?!

Silberman testified,

“It was an ongoing…litany of problems…and we supported Peggy in every single one of them... please understand…there was a problem every other day...”

Silberman told the jury “you look at the number of management problems…from Peggy compared to all others…” and he gestured to indicate a tall stack of problems from Petrilli and a short stack for all other principals.

The district was able to put into evidence a long list of failings that showed with great effect that Petrilli's management and relationship problems gave parents a reason to distrust her administration of the school on grounds that had nothing to do with her race, thus crippling the idea of some kind of racial conspiracy.

In action after action, the district portrayed Petrilli as the principal who couldn't shoot straight. The jury heard that she muffed hiring practices, created tremendous staff turnover, went back on agreements, ignored special education students’ IEPs, demoted 4th graders on the first day of testing, jeopardized Reading First funding for 11 participating schools, advised staff members to do “illegal things,” and made changes with a level of intuitive caprice that damaged relationships with community partners and cut her off from those she would otherwise be leading.

But jurors also heard the story of school principals who got a kind of special evaluation that teachers could only dream of. No bad marks.

The district claims they "supported Peggy.” But it seems clear that what the district really did was enable Petrilli, by not using the evaluation system as it was intended; to motivate her to improve her performance in areas where she was relatively weak. It got to the point where district directors thought, "This is just one more thing Peggy has gotten us into."

In a May editorial following the long awaited release of the district’s investigation into BTWA, H-L regretted their praise of Petrilli and their belief in “miracle-working” principals.

H-L said,

“The most amazing thing about all this is how eager everyone was to be gulled, to believe that all it takes is the right principal for kids who have almost no advantages to suddenly knock the lid off standardized tests. People want to believe that because if all it takes is leadership, then schools don't need more money or teachers or days of instruction or better-trained teachers.”

True. But if that was a confession, it falls short.

No one was more eager to be gulled than the editorial board. H-L helped spread the news of the principal-as-savior and didn't want anyone to get in the way of the narrative. They wanted to print the legend.

H-L claims it has learned a lesson from setting Petrilli up on that pedestal. Now they are fighting to keep Silberman up there. That’s a mistake.

The truth is that Silberman is a zealous, hard-working leader. It’s not that he isn't deserving of praise for his dedication; he has fended off numerous entreaties to become education commissioner, but he should not be confused with a savior.

If the Herald-Leader wants to help the public improve the schools, perhaps they should tell the story of how difficult this work really is, and resist the temptation to join those who engage in politically-motivated easy speak that promises much while ignoring reality.

Reflections of an Occassional Semi-Journalist

It has only been a couple of weeks since unsuccessful Kentucky education commissioner candidate Dennis Cheek was fussing at me for my journalistic short comings.

KSN&C had posted news of his creationist writings from the early 1980s. We also picked up a news story from a professional news outlet that contained an error - which we quickly corrected. Cheek and I exchanged a few testy emails.

Cheek argued that it would have been better if I had "checked with [him] first BEFORE posting" rather than "always post[ing] first and "then forc[ing him] to respond to [the story] ex post facto." This was particularly germane in Cheek's case since he now rejects his former creationist position. It would have been better for Cheek if I had. But it was his choice not to mention his paper to the Kentucky board of education that had selected him as a finalist. When the issue surfaced he was immediately put on the defensive.

It is my understanding that when he got "the question" from reporters covering his interview in Kentucky, "he looked stunned for about 20 seconds," and then "very forthrightly" rejected his old paper and expanded his thoughts on religion and science with appropriate detail and recognition of the court's ruling in the Dover case.

But is KSN&C really practicing journalism by simply aggregating such news stories? I think not.

Fellow blogger Tom Eblen, who writes for the Herald-Leader and teaches journalistic ethics at UK tells me that one is a journalist when one practices journalism. I take that to mean, actually putting in the time and doing the work it takes to research the issues, check sources, capture quotes and accurately reflect the differing points of view that attend every news story and to do it from primary (first-person) sources. This pursuit is a noble and critical component of our democracy and like many Americans I am concerned for its future.

In most cases, KSN&C dabbles in semi-journalism. A lot of time and effort goes into assuring that our reporting is authoritative, but we are clearly at the mercy of what others write. Mistakes are to be avoided, but if someone errs it is up to the author to be responsible for their own content.
As I argued to Cheek, "You are responsible for handling what you write. I am responsible for handling what I write. "They" are responsible for handling what they write."

Cheek and I were ultimately unable to agree but my final message to him was,

Finally, and sincerely, I have no personal animosity toward you. It's not about that for me. I have my own opinions, but I am largely disinterested in which individual becomes our next commissioner. That's the board's job to determine, and I don't have a vote. When that selection is made, I'm going to reprint the news - good or bad - no matter who the commissioner is. I will express opinions along the way.

I can understand how you might be frustrated, or even angry, that I found your old creationist paper and printed the fact of its existence. I anticipated and opined that it would be seen as "a problem" by many. I think that has proven to be true. I have wondered aloud why you didn't alert the board to its existence. If the Herald-Leader can be believed - and, right or wrong, I rely on their reporting every day - ...they wrote that it did not come up as an issue for you in Missouri [where Cheek was also a finalist]. But really Dennis, none of that makes me the responsible party when it comes to handling the fallout. It was your [paper], and your responsibility to handle it - which you ultimately did very forthrightly. I believe if you had done that up front, we'd be having a very different conversation right now.

Is it fair to Cheek for me to reflect on this experience? It happened. He is a public figure who was vying for the top job in our state's educational system, and that's "my beat."

More recently, KSN&C has been doing something very different - practicing real-live-honest-to-goodness journalism by "covering" the Petrilli v Silberman trial. This was the kind of detached, yet face-to-face journalism real reporters do every day. For eight full days I sat with H-L's Jim Warren on a hard bench, tapping away on my keyboard, trying to capture as much data as I could. [...not my preferred method, but Judge Ishmael "took away" my digital recorder.]


On the last day, waiting for the jury to return with their verdict, John McNeill mentioned to the judge something about how my blogging and Twittering changed the ambiance of the courtroom - which in his mind became reminiscent of an old WWII movie with the lilt of the telegraph dotting the away in the background; dot da dit dot dot dit - only now it was; tap tap, tap tap tap.

The experience of reporting a trial was more demanding than I anticipated. In court by 8 AM to catch any discussions before the jury arrived; the reporter is pretty well stuck there. To leave for a moment is to risk missing the story. To misunderstand a ruling is to misreport. Then, somewhere around 5PM when the brain is a bit mushy, some kind of story must be written. Several days I found myself "too tired" and not having a deadline or an editor - but having a wife - chose family time instead. I would get up at 5 AM the next day (as is my custom) to post my story. Some days I could bounce off whatever Warren had done the night before.

But that wasn't the worst of it. The very situation put me squarely in conflict with people I know, trust and respect on both sides of the issue. I was neutral in a land where everyone was expected to be loyal and take sides.

As a former principal in Fayette County, I was a colleague of Peggy Petrilli's when she was still at Northern. I was publicly supportive of her work in a Herald-Leader Op Ed and viewed her selection for Booker T Washington Academy as an important history-changing effort in our community. I said I'd be watching what happened.

I had also written in H-L about Fayette County's need for strong consistent leadership at the top following a string of short-lived superintendents. The degree of turnover had left a district somewhat adrift. There was a lot of undirected talent in Fayette County and Silberman seemed to be just what the doctor ordered.

But the case also brought forward a string witnesses and visitors to the courtroom that I knew or had worked with, including a couple I worked with pretty closely. Bob McLaughlin had been my director for a number of years, and if he had remained so, I'm pretty sure I would have worked in Fayette County a little longer. And if either one of us ever needed a little "therapy" Jock Gum and I could simply walk next door and get it; me for him, and he for me. Bob and Jock testified on the same day and there aren't a whole lot of people I like better than these guys.

Add to that Barbara Connor, Mike Burke, Becky Sagan, Mary Browning, Mike McKenzie, Vince Mattox, Jack Hayes, Lisa Stone, Amanda Main Ferguson, and I know I'm forgetting some - like I say, it was not easy to be neutral. I sensed periods of discomfiture with the principal combatants. Some days they could manage, if not a smile, a pleasant nod. Other days they avoided eye contact. In my head it was related to whatever I had written the day before, but maybe that's just ego on my part. They may not have read KSN&C at all, but were only reacting to the pressures of the trial itself.

But the stories got read. A modest little niche blog, KSN&C readership - typically eduwonks and news types - doubled and doubled again as Fayette County and North Carolina teachers, and a surprising number of young lawyers, appear to have discovered it.

But that's no match for Jim Warren's readership at the Herald-Leader. Despite their economic woes, H-L readership has never been higher and Warren's stories are read by thousands.

But the news business is in trouble.

On the eve of President Obama's health care press conference, the Herald-Leader came and got Warren out of the courtroom. Concerned by the length of the trial and needing an experienced hand to interview some local folks on health care issues, they sent a young reporter to fetch him to help with the story. Apparently, there was no one else to do it. When he returned the next day, he asked me, "They didn't settle, did they?"

But there is no substitute for the work Warren does. If the case had not fallen in July, as it did, I could have followed the case for KSN&C readers, but I could not have covered it. And I would not have caught issues related to how the law was argued (twisted) before the jury, issues of privilege or the incredible claims by one director that she had never marked a principal down in any category of evaluation in her entire career. We're going to have to talk about that issue some more later.

Warren joked with me that bloggers are the new journalists who would transform news gathering - but we both know that's not true. Newspapers may change but I think there are a few critical constants that remain.

• There is no suitable substitute for the professional practice of journalism.
• Professional journalism is crucial to democracy.
• Local papers may well pool journalists for future coverage of state and national news but local papers must "own" local news.
• Most bloggers fail to rise to the level of "journalism" most of the time and all too frequently fail the test of neutral reporting. Neutrality is just not "their thing." Political voice is.
• Lots of folks are going to continue to want a print edition of "the paper."

America needs a new model for supporting news gathering and it can't be governmental. Perhaps new media foundations will emerge.

The media will continue to publish stories that shine an unfavorable light on certain powerful individuals and those individuals will continue to attack the media as a result. There may even be some psychological satisfaction for the general public doing so as well.

But by some means, the work of professional journalists must be preserved. It is far too important to be left to the amateurs.

Conduct Open Search for Ed Chief

Take a lesson from botched job in 2007

To update the KSN&C record, I had a couple of versions of the same letter in the Herald-Leader and Courier-Journal today.

Ed Commish Search Story updated: here and here.

Warning: The Herald-Leader story carries a photo of a rabid chipmunk! Allowing small children to view such photos could cause bad dreams and emotional distress.

Who Killed the CATS?

It's a shame the CATS assessment went out as it did. Better would have been a planned move to segue CATS toward a kind of value-added system that collected lots of data, but which restrained any inappropriate, scientifically unsupportable uses of the data. C'est dommage.

The state's major newspapers provided their own post mortems on school reform in Kentucky since Friday's collapse of the CATS assessment. They found the same perpetrators.

Their analysis is correct, to a point, but incomplete.

In "Death of reform" the Courier-Journal offered,

The irony is, it's the Republican leadership in Frankfort that has linked arms with the statewide teacher union, the Kentucky Education Association, to trample the remaining vestiges of what was once a comprehensive state reform, with a demanding accountability system.

It's understandable why the conservative, educationally revanchist Republicans and their right-wing think-tank friends want to discredit Kentucky's public education reform, as part of a long-term strategy to abase the public sector, mollycoddle middle-class striver-parents with outmoded, ineffective nationally normed testing and pave the way toward private school vouchers.

C-J might also have mentioned that some opponents didn't seem to believe that equality of educational opportunity was a particularly useful goal from the start. As early as 1994, the Bluegrass Institute's Richard Innes was identified by the Kentucky Post as a KERA foe. BIPPS has since shown a willingness to twist or exaggerate the truth out of any data point to tell a story they wish to be true. The Family Foundation proudly counts itself among those who opposed KERA from the start.

The Herald-Leader has learned that good teachers are sad, but bad teachers are happy. They didn't specifically indicate which were which.

With no whisper of objection from Gov. Steve Beshear, lawmakers last week kicked the ladder out from under the many educators who have been working hard to pull their students and schools up. (On the lower rungs, less accomplished teachers were gleeful.) ...

As it stands, cynics can justifiably conclude that Beshear and House Democrats, under new Speaker Greg Stumbo, caved to the worst impulses of both the teachers union and conservative enemies of public schools.

Similarly, C-J declared it "a mystery why KEA would want to help them do their dirty work," but then decided it must be teacher laziness, and resistance to new ideas - not from the good teachers, you know, but the bad teachers.

You can tell who's who by their support for CATS - or lack thereof.

Simple.

And too simple is what makes both papers wrong.

The papers' desire to turn a deaf ear to the increasingly shrill complaints from a majority of Kentucky teachers - good and bad - over the most recent escalation of test preparation tactics has served to support overzealous superintendents and principals as they ignored veteran teachers' opinions while applying the thumb screws to any teacher who dared not comply.

In that process, we have seen school districts introduce new program after new program, rarely allowing faculty time necessary to allow the innovation to become intergrated into the system. They didn't have time to wait. The superintendent wanted another 10-point jump this year. Somebody on the editorial boards should have written about that.

The holy grail of school reform became that too-good-to-be-true savior principal whose leadership alone would lift children out of ignorance and set the world on the right course.

It a great dream. But it's a dream.

In that sense, do the papers share some complicity for the demise of the CATS assessment?

Just as the papers' unbending support for the Primary Program drove away far too many of our school's most energetic supporters - the parents of primary children - the gamesmanship of the CATS assessment soured a majority of Kentucky teachers. One wonders where we would be today if a more balanced approach was employed by our school reformers, our administrators and the editorial boards. Might it be that the conservative forces could not have mustered the necessary support for a unamious vote in both houses without the number of disillusioned teachers the system has created?

Did you hear that big sigh of relief sweep across the state? I did.

Is it party time in Kentucky schools? I hope not, but I wouldn't give a plug nickle for program evaluations as a substitute for real accountability.

Stop the Mistreatment of Lexington Kindergarteners!

The photos by David Perry in this morning's Herald-Leader demonstrate the finest aspects of photojournalism - the ability to shock the public conscience.

Perry's expose' goes deep inside a government run school to get this troubling shot. It clearly shows the abuse of a 5-year old child in Lexington being exposed to a controversial procedure in stark circumstances. The so-called teacher is clearly shown holding a sharp instrument. The child is being forced...to think!

He's being asked to count.

He's being asked to write his name.

He's being asked to identify his colors and sounds!

Will no one stop the torture?!

Meanwhile, on the other side of Lexington...

...tissues at the ready for the inevitable breakdowns to come.

For years the nation's haughtiest private schools have used such devious procedures in secret places to reject the unworthy. Thousands of deflated egos...countless broken little hearts.

Call Stu Silberman Now! Tell him this heartbreaking practice must end!

Now that the damage is done, H-L says leave it alone.

If it ain't broke don't fix it. But what if it is...

Unfortunately, the changes required to Kentucky's assessment system by NCLB took a local impulse toward nornative assessment and layered on top a new mess. The retreat from a performance based system restricts the curriculum and makes "teaching to the test" a valid complaint.

Now we've got 2 scores that we use for different purposes. What are the chances the public will trust that?

More Multiple choice, less performance-based. Not what the law called for.

DOK. Bloom rip off.

Too bad this editorial didn't come a year ago.

Skip Kifer is correct. If you want to measure change, don't change the measure. But I wonder, did H-L ask Skip if he thinks we've got a good system in place right now?

Confidence drain
Stop changing CATS testing system

Everyone should resist the urge to tinker with CATS, Kentucky's public school testing system, for a while.

That's asking a lot of politicians in Frankfort and Washington and of testing experts, especially when there's so much clamor over the amount of time students and teachers must spend on standardized testing.

But each time the goal lines are moved, as they were this year, there's a loss of public confidence that schools are really being held accountable for teaching every child...

...What bothered educators most about this year's alteration of the scoring scale was that it made it harder for them to analyze changes in performance and therefore to evaluate whether what they're doing is working...

H-L calls for entire Kentucky Board of Education to resign

Education chief: Begin search by getting a new board

Gov. Ernie Fletcher overhauled the Kentucky Board of Education last year with a spate of new appointees, some of whom said they supported exposing students to alternatives to the theory of evolution, including intelligent design.

Instead, students and the public have been exposed to a search for a new education commissioner that has been both unintelligent and ill-designed.

Just last weekend, Leon Mooneyhan, a candidate for the job as interim commissioner, said he had "never been subjected to a more unprofessional set of circumstances," in his life.

"I don't see any Kentucky educator that would want to apply for the job," the retired Shelby County superintendent of schools said.

If Fletcher cares at all about education in Kentucky, he should ask the entire board to resign so he can appoint members who have the capacity and desire to improve public education in the state rather than obsess over irrelevant hot-button issues.

But since that would be a sign that the governor is able to learn from his mistakes, something he's been unable to do in the past, the board itself should at least put the commissioner search on hold until after the election.

A brief history: The board hired a well-regarded search firm in December to find and vet candidates after Commissioner Gene Wilhoit announced he was leaving.

In April, the board named Barbara Erwin as its first choice despite her very modest qualifications and stuck with her even as news reports uncovered discrepancies in her resume and painful controversies in past jobs. Erwin finally walked away from the $220,000 a year job just three days before starting work, predictably blaming her problems on aggressive media coverage.

The board, for its part, blames the search firm. Board observers say deep divisions within the group make it almost impossible to move forward.

Despite the rush to assess blame and analyze the board, this isn't a parlor game without serious consequences; it's about finding a great leader who can help Kentucky's children get a better shot at a good education.

And this botched search leaves serious questions about whether the current board can oversee a national search, much less convince an outstanding candidate to come here if the board ever found one.

Kentucky's students deserve better.

This from the Herald-Leader.

Whither Education Reform in Kentucky?

The Herald-Leader ran a perceptive editorial in today's paper. Among other things, they ask - Where do our gubernatorial candidates stand on education reform? Will they revive reform? Or, are they content to let things slide?

"Kentuckians should demand that the candidates for governor, Fletcher and Democrat Steve Beshear, spell out how they plan to pump up education and get progress rolling again."

Early on in the Erwin mess I e-mailed Jody Whitaker, Governor Fletcher's press secretary, to test Fletcher's concern over the way the board of education was handling the selection process. No response.

So I waited.

About a week before Barbara Erwin's exodus, I sent a Steve Beshear staffer a bunch of information and asked if the candidate would go on the record with his opinion of what was going on. Nothing.

Maybe I'm politically naive. I can understand Fletcher's reluctance to say much, but I don't mistake his silence for wisdom. I just don't understand why Beshear didn't jump on this issue with both feet. But it seems neither candidate wants to criticize the board, or lead on the issues. I just don't see evidence to the contrary.

But don't miss H-L's real message. What they are really asking is - Where are you?

It must also be said that during the Erwin mess, it was impossible to find an organization in the educational establishment that expressed concerns over what most (if not all) must surely have thought was a train wreck about to happen. Did I miss it? Where were the statements of concern from the KEA, KASA, KSBA, KASC...EIEIO....

True: It's a courageous choice to raise concerns about a person who is about to become "your boss." This is particularly true with one who has a track record of "house cleaning;" perhaps even vindictiveness. It forces one to choose between self-interest and the children's best interest.

Only the Prichard Committee got close to saying something's very wrong here.

I'm one who believes that leadership works best when it is both supported AND challenged from below. Leadership needs our support, but it also needs our best advice, even our considered doubts. There are ways to deliver that message respectfully. But it still requires courage.

H-L says, "That big whoosh you hear is the air rushing out of education reform."

They say:

• Fletcher has little to show after 3 1/2 years
• Kentucky is not attracting quality candidates for our top jobs
• Kentucky has lost its commitment and determination
• Partisan impotence in the legislature is killing reform
• There are legitimate questions about this board of education's ability to become effective
• The Ky board should continue a national search
• Interim candidates (for Commish & CPE) should not be candidates for the permanent position
• "Fletcher needs to explain how he would reverse the backsliding of his first term, and Beshear needs to spell out how he'd do better."

Are they right?

In the end, if they are right -the education establishment needs to help lead us out. It also shares some of the blame for not making a stronger case in our local communities; a case that would support - but also challenge - our General Assembly to keep education as THE TOP PRIORITY for Kentucky's future economic and social well-being.

That requires a lot of people speaking up. And that requires leadership at every level.

This from the Herald-Leader.

Search for education commissioner is trying for state board

This from Raviya Ismail of the Herald-Leader:

The Kentucky State Board of Education is working to remain unified and accelerate the process of finding a new commissioner after its top choice pulled out of the position a week ago.

But several members acknowledged tension within the board since controversial Illinois educator Barbara Erwin resigned the post last Friday, citing news media scrutiny of her performance at other districts she’s led.

“It’s been a difficult time for all the board; it’s been a trying time,” said board member David Rhodes. “But I think we’re all solid individuals and everyone’s wanting to do what’s best for public education in Kentucky.”

...“We really have not progressed that far,” [Doug] Hubbard said. “All we’ve really done is accept Dr. Erwin’s letter of resignation.”

...At the Aug. 8-9 meeting, the board will elect new officers. Some members indicated there may be a movement to name a new chairman to replace [Keith] Travis, who has held the post since 2004...

“There may be those among us who believe that we need to make a fresh start, and those may vote for someone other than Keith,” Hubbard said.

Travis said it is a difficult time to be board chairman, but he will remain in the position if elected. “Whether I’m in a leadership role on the board doesn’t matter,” Travis said. “I’m not planning a departure, but what you hope to do is that you left the facility better that you found it, you made a contribution and somebody is ready to take over.”

Kentucky Board of Education reassesses

Travis delivers the quotes I've been waiting for

The Kentucky Board of Education voted 9-0 last night to accept the resignation of Barbara Erwin.

After a 2 1/2 hour closed session, they decided to start an immediate search for an interim education commissioner. Kevin Noland, the head of legal services for KDE, has his other full-time job he wants to get back to.

Board chair Keith Travis told the Herald-Leader that he hopes to have a person in place within two weeks.

Travis also said the board was not under pressure to find a permanent replacement and stressed that board members want a Kentucky educator to apply.

If the overall quality of the field produced by the recent national search was as shallow as it seems, one can understand the board's reluctance. And of course, once burned; twice shy. Board members now say they won't use Ray & Associates, which cost Kentucky $50,000, and aren't sure whether they will use a search firm at all.

Travis had been quoted saying he wouldn't call Erwin's hiring a mistake, but yesterday changed his tune when he said that he did not think Erwin was the best person for the job. He told the Courier-Journal that the board tried to give Erwin the benefit of the doubt.

Travis said that he started to question whether Erwin was right for the job after talking with her about the investigation. "We relied heavily on a search firm to provide us information, and probably relied on them too much."

Travis said neither he nor the board encouraged Erwin to resign but that he did have a conversation with her early Friday morning, questioning her about all of the distractions. "The board was having serious concerns about her ability to provide leadership with all of these other issues going on in her life," he said. "At some point, all of these items become cumulative and certainly the one on Wednesday (the missing personnel file) was the icing on the cake."

AT LAST !

Travis told the Courier-Journal, "We want Kentucky educators to apply. We think that message was loud and clear from the constituents across the commonwealth (last time) and certainly as we press toward proficiency, we would hope a Kentucky educator would be the best leader to know the system and lead us to that level in 2014."

(Hummmm. OK, but through this whole process I've never heard anyone mention that the problems related to Erwin were the result of her not being from Kentucky. Erwin's problems were because of Erwin. If we're serious about getting all Kentucky students to proficiency by 2014 - or at least getting close - the leadership we really need starts with David Williams and Jody Richards.)

H-L reported that several education advocates urged the board to take their time, and said because it's a gubernatorial election year, they should even consider waiting until after the next election is over.

"From the get-go, appointing a new commissioner, in the middle of an election, was a bad idea," said Al Smith, host of Comment on Kentucky, who also was critical of the search process in his columns.

Here are today's articles from the Herald-Leader and the Courier-Journal.
~
OK ... So if the focus shifts to a Kentucky educator...there are only a couple of possible candidates - right? New guy (Berman) in Jefferson - he's out. The next biggest district - and the only other one that approaches the management scale we're talking about is Fayette County. Silberman, who has shown some character and passed on the opportunity to apply last time, is three years into a ten-year pledge to serve Lexington folks. That leaves.......?

Silberman may need to be begged and absolved, but...

Here's my trade scenario: Silberman from Fayette County to KDE; Marcum from Marion County to Fayette County.

Herald-Leader responds to yesterday's Supreme Court rulings

Not-so-free speech
Rulings favor special interests, not citizens

It's noteworthy that President Bush's Supreme Court is picking and choosing which free speech to protect.

Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority rose to the defense of the kind of speech that's fueled by millions of special-interest dollars. But they slapped down a high school student who was suspended for hoisting a cryptically goofy "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" sign at a non-school event.

A court that truly puts the First Amendment first would have honored precedent and ruled that the Constitution gives students the right to free expression. Instead, the court perceived a dangerous pro-drug message in the parody banner.

The court also abandoned precedent to clear the way for unlimited amounts of special-interest money to pour into the final weeks of political campaigns under the guise of so-called issue ads. Often bankrolled by corporations and unions, these ads clearly malign one candidate without specifically advocating voting for a particular opponent.

Roberts said: "Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

He should have added except when the speaker is an average person with no bankroll to back up his words.

Cartoon by Joel Pett.

Kentucky Board of Education: Inexperienced board lacks seasoning in Erwin mess, H-L editorial writer says.

Presents one image to the board behind closed doors,
another to reporters

I am a podcast listener of Comment on Kentucky, KET's long-running public affairs program hosted by journalist Al Smith. Unfortunately, I didn't get around to listening to last Friday's program until this morning - while I restacked the firewood onto a palet I made.

At any rate, the show (June 15, 2007) included comments from Herald-Leader Editorial Assistant Jamie Lucke and CNHI News Service reporter Ronnie Ellis on the Kentucky Board of Education and the Erwin situation. (Note: video runs about 3 minutes and starts 2/3rds of the way through the program.)

Sitting in for Al Smith last week was Director of the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues at UK, Al Cross.

Al Cross: The state board of education met this week, and the new commissioner, Barbara Erwin, is not on-board yet, but...can you tell us why the state board picked the controversial Barbara Erwin and why they're sticking with her?

Jamie Lucke: Well, I...can only surmise, but I have to surmise that they must not have had a very strong field of applicants to begin with. Perhaps because of the uncertainty about a change in administrations, that this governor may lose and that whoever got the job would have to deal with a new administration. And then I think they just got so deep into the process without having been informed by their search firm, their professional search firm that she had a lot of baggage. I mean this is the kind of baggage that a reporter googling her can find out in fifteen minutes. Why the board was taken by surprise is something that I don't know. But it just seems like they were too far in to back out. It's a fairly inexperienced board. All of the board members now are appointees of Governor Fletcher and you know, they don't have the seasoning that some...earlier boards have had and they just stuck with their choice. I suspect she must be very dynamic in person because they spent a great deal of time with her in a closed session and came out and said 'we're stickin.'

Ronnie Ellis: And...she can be a very good interview. She can be dynamic. I think she perhaps is presenting one image to the board behind closed doors and dealing with reporters in a little bit different light because there have been a number of things that we were told that board members were told differently in that meeting. And,, just quickly, all of the board members were appointed by Fletcher. ...Keith Travis, the chairman, was originally appointed by Paul Patton, and reappointed. All the others are Fletcher appointees for the first time.

Congratulations Bulldogs! Dunbar takes State BaseballChampionship

A record crowd of 4,467 saw a familiar sight -- a Lexington team celebrating a state title on the infield grass of Applebee's Park.

Dunbar, finishing a 38-6 season, also won the crown in 2003. Lexington Christian took the trophy in 2005, and Lexington Catholic was the 2006 winner.

Dunbar went 10-1 in these playoffs, with pitching, defense and timely hitting carrying them to the top.

Thomas Royse, the ace of the staff, was the star on the mound last night. The 6-foot-6 right-hander who has signed with Louisville went six innings, gave up three hits and struck out seven to improve his record to 14-1.

He threw one pitch in the bottom of the seventh before taking a bow, getting a hug from his pitching coach, and walking to the dugout to the cheers of the fans.

"That was very tough, a very emotional moment," he said.

Going into the finals, Shelby County Coach Donnie Williams said his team couldn't afford to let Dunbar have a big inning.

Needless to say, he didn't get his wish.

The Bulldogs got all their runs in one marathon at-bat as they sent 14 batters to the plate in the third.

Dunbar did some hitting -- Chris Wood (tournament MVP) had two hits and two RBI in the inning, and Giuliani and Chris Kubajak each had a double.

But Shelby County was its own worst enemy. Rockets' pitchers walked in a pair of runs and beaned another batter with the bases loaded.

Shelby County's defense was at fault, too. It dropped a routine fly ball to help fuel the rally.

Giving Royse a 9-0 lead is like locking up the gold in Fort Knox. He said he "couldn't have pictured" a better scenario than having a huge lead.

This from the Herald-Leader, Photo by MARK CORNELISON .