Lancaster ISD school capacity analysis

jefmelch, says:

Timely. Thanks Pegasus!

According to posted agenda,

http://www.lancasterisd.org/sections/...

the Monday, June 4, Board of Trustees meeting will include "Communication" from the administration to the board and public regarding

1. Reorganization and Facilities Use

So we'll get a new set of seat counts for the reorganized attendance zones and use of facilities.

This, along with seating the new trustees, election of officers, TAKS test result previews, and other excitement. Show starts at 6:30 p.m.

OleBurt, says:

I'm not too smart on this school district stuff butI have been reading some interesting things lately on Pegasus News. Someone correct me if I have the wrong picture. The Lancaster ISD has space for an additional 3,000 students, L. Lewis spent the district's $2 million fund balance, he just borrowed $6 million to pay the bills until Aug 31. Seems to me he is $8 million in the hole. When he came here the district was about $3.5 million in the hole. Looks like the LISD is worse off today than it was four years ago when Lewis hit town. Did I read correctly that he just lost his third referendum in succession, this time by a 2 to 1 margin? Three in a row must be a national record. Does this make Lewis a record setting loser? I hear the board president got kicked out by the voters. Someone help me unterstand why this man is still hanging around when no one has confidence in him. Do you think a $200,000 annual salary has anything to to with it? Just asking.

queensheeba, says:

L. Lewis also gets ALL his insurance paid for. Health, dental, vision, disability, etc. I also believe they pay his spouses' health. So add that to his salary. Go to lancasterisd.org and check out his contract for all the other perks he has received.

Chestertonian, says:

OleBurt,

More than that, it appears that independently getting, reading and interpreting data, and then making decisions objectively is not a primary concern to some school board members.

What the school board is either unable or unwilling to do, the voters did. Seems like the answer to this debacle is for informed and gutsy voters to run for the board next time around.

canuhearme1, says:

OleBurt:

The best advice I can give you and other readers of this bologna is to get your information from the district or Dr. Lewis. Please do not rely on this mess Mr. Greisman, Mr. Melcher, Mr. Allen and the other critics pass off as facts.

If you truly seek the truth, pegnews.com is not the place to find it (at least, none of the published information that they try and convince their readers is true).

Please call the administration building and ask the questions you wish to know answers to and don't believe these men's rubbish as truth. They would not know the truth if it slapped them in their hypocritical and racist faces.

jefmelch, says:

CanU, you write: "... none of the published information that they (Pegasus)try and convince their readers is true..."

I would be most grateful, and I'm sure the other readers of Pegasus News would be as well, if you would use your intimate connections with Dr Lewis and/or members of the Board of Trustees to get the truth and expose the actual errors presented here. For example, if Richard Griesman has doctored the images of the building capacity, that are being represented as Lancaster ISD public records, well, it would be helpful to see the original unaltered records. As Sheeba recommends readers do, referring to the District's own website for the official contract between the taxpayers and the superintendent. If there has been some sort of hack to the LISD website making embarrassing and incorrect changes to that contract, please show us the correct and truthful original. Sort of the way Dan Rather's hoax about the Texas Air National Guard was exposed. If you would do that I'm sure we would all respect you a great deal.

On the other hand, since calling a reporter a liar is not evidence, and calling a homeschooler a -- well -- homeschooler is far from an insult, I'm not sure who should respond to those comments, nor am I sure HOW one should respond.

You are being heard. I can hear you.

I don't mind my name being used as an insult.

I do suggest you work harder at bringing truth to the discussion.

Chestertonian, says:

Can u , why not raise the bar for this debate? For starters here are a few logical fallacy definitions that need reviewing: ad hominem (attack the man), ad authoritarium/ad verecundiam (appeal to authority), and ignorantio elenchi (diverting the issue). Give me the facts, nothing but the facts (hard data), and I will listen to you.

RichardG, says:

Canyouhearme1:

Your statement has me bewildered “is to get your information from the district or Dr. Lewis.” The documents that were attached to my report came from the LISD and the documents were copied for inclusion in the report. Now you wish us to believe the Exhibits A-2, A-3, B-2, and B-3 are not true reproductions.

Exhibit A-3 was copied from the Proposed Bond Program - Preliminary Scope and Budget Fall 2006, the first page under Tab 1. The Exhibits, A-2, B-2. & B-3, were reproduced from documents distributed to the Board of Trustees. Exhibit B-2 has a date of 3-6-2006. Exhibit B-3 has a date of 8/24/2006. Exhibit A-2 may have been reproduced from the LISD 2005-2006 Budget, but of that I am not certain.

If you think the Exhibit documents are not true reproductions, then provide us with your copies and the date the documents were submitted to the Board of Trustees. I hope you are not typical of the rest of the LISD employees. When you disagree with reports, you call the report writers are liars and racist.

interestedcitizen, says:

Lewis is still hanging around because, after the failed bond election in May of 2006, he persuaded his "yes man" board to give him a one year contract extension. He then had 6 "yes men" (Ed Kirkland, Sue Mendoza, Marie Elliot, Rick Glover, Russ Johnson,and Nannette Vick) and 1 independent thinker (Carolyn Morris) after the other independent thinker (Nina Mangrum) was replaced by the "yes man" Marie Elliot. Normally, when people lose bond elections, they either leave or are forced out. Lewis dug in his heels and said, in effect "I'm not leaving, and if you want me to leave, you'll have to buy me out." He persuaded his "team of eight" (the school board members plus himself)to give him that contract extension. I don't think Morris voted for that extension.

You can see the tactics of Lewis' supporters on this website. While his opponents cite data and original sources, his supporters simply resort to labeling, name calling, and racial slurs.

I don't think we can afford to pay him two years' salary not to work and hire another superintendent at the same time. Besides, it appears that he has at least four of seven school board members lined up behind him, given that they voted for each other for president, first vice president, second vice president, and secretary.(Kirkland,Elliot, Mendoza, and Stanmore) Even if the school board changes, it is going to be expensive to buy this man out of his contract.

Originally, he asked for five years, and, in fact said, "give me $75 million in February [of 2004 (he actually got $110 million)] and I'll give you the best school district in the nation in five years." That would have carried him through August of 2008. Last year, he got that five year contract extended another year to the end of August of 2009. So, if the school board were to get rid of him now, it would have to pay him at least $400,000, while paying another superintendent at the same time. That is what it costs to hire 8 teachers.

If Lewis leaves, he will have to leave voluntarily. He won't leave unless someone offers him more money. Since he seems to be comfortable where he is, that suggests no one is out there offering him more money. I think Oleburt has a point.

jefmelch, says:

InterestedCitizen claims: "Normally, when people lose bond elections, they either leave or are forced out" IntCit provides no evidence or citation for such a claim.

Allow me:

http://cnx.org/content/m13636/latest/ "Overcoming Negative Sentiment in Public School Bond Elections: An Analysis of Three Case Studies"

From the article summary: "Three school districts located in Texas were chosen because of the turnaround experienced in their most recent bond elections. Each of these districts held a bond election prior to the successful one in which the voters were overwhelmingly against the bond as exhibited by the percentage of votes in favor."

Why were the bonds defeated in the first place?

"First, there was a general complaint that the facilities the district was currently using were not properly maintained. ... Second, the previous district leadership was not concerned with advice from teachers ... and teachers were opposed to the bond. Third, the community was not asked for input on the planning, resulting in a lack of understanding and support. Fourth, there was a lack of trust. The community had been made promises in the past that did not happen ..." and later "... many influential individuals vocally opposed it, stating that a $293 million referendum was too large and did not focus upon the most important needs of the district. "

So what happened?

Case One: '...The bond referendum failed with 88% of the votes going against the proposal, and the superintendent ultimately decided to accept employment in another district.'

Case Two: " ... These plans were presented to the voters in a bond election, and the outcome was 75% against the proposition. Shortly after this defeat, the superintendent accepted employment in another school district. "

Case Three: ... "There were only 32% of the voters in favor of the bond ... The district superintendent involved with this bond retired soon after the referendum defeat."

Read the Whole Thing.

Note that in all these cases the community agreed it needed to pass a bond and build new school buildings. The problem was NOT a lack of support for schools, children, or education. The problem was not an opposition to tax increases. The problem was that grandiose solutions developed without, or despite, the input of teachers, parents and the community were offered. And those offers were resoundingly rejected.

Sound familiar?

What solutions were offered, (by NEW superintendents?)

Case one: [the new superintendent} met with teachers and community to solicit their input. He found that most individuals believed the district would be better off renovating and expanding existing facilities instead of building a new one.

Case two: "A new facilities committee was created and it met regularly for several months. It had the responsibility to research and develop a plan for the proposed bond. The committee wanted to be able to answer the toughest questions of the community. In developing the ballots, the bond committee and district leadership decided to address the trust issue even further. They outlined on the ballots what the funds would be used to purchase; furthermore, they provided three separate propositions for the voters to consider. "

Case three: [the new superintendent] " ... restructured the central office to focus more clearly on student needs and eliminate positions ... then he developed a long-term preventive maintenance plan to ensure increased use of existing facilities ... an audit of the district that was presented publicly [which] indicated the areas in vital need for improvement, and a plan was developed to address these needs. The plan included the need for bond funds to allow for construction and renovation"

There may be nothing that keeps the current superintendent from soliciting fresh community input, renovating rather than demolishing schools, passing an audit, and otherwise taking the steps needed to restore trust. Nothing stops a man from admitting his mistakes and starting over.

Or, we can all vote on the exact same proposals a fourth time.

Want to bet which is more likely?

estherspeaks, says:

Racism has nothing to do with why support for Dr. Lewis has waned over the last year. “Canyouhearme” tells us to get our information from Dr. Lewis or the district. That would be wonderful, if we got correct information or “ANY” information from the district that was not slanted or misconstrued. What we get is a spin doctor and false, flawed, or no information when open record requests are requested. If you continue to have doors closed and information is slow or does not come at all, then mistrust begins to set in. As a supporter of Dr. Lewis for the first three years of his tenure, I wanted so to believe that the African-American community finally had gotten someone here that would be a good role model for our ever-growing population of African-American students, but at every public meeting, parents and those who asked questions were rebuked or ridiculed because they did not fall into lock step with the spin doctor. Parents started to question why our kids were not achieving in the academic areas that we were promised. We got bigger and better bands and choirs and bigger and better sports teams, but our academics are still below standards. We wanted our schools to be like those in Plano and Richardson, but not all kids are high achievers in fine arts and sports, some want a better learning environment. It seems this is the height of racism when we tell our African-American kids, we want you to excel in basketball and music, because academics are not as much fun or rewarding. This may be why those of Dr. Lewis’ early supporters turned against him. Look at where the most money was spent in the last bond—a football field, three gyms, band hall, choir, theatre, orchestra rooms. All of these are great things and I know our kids want them, but the academic facilities should have come first and then the sports facilities. That is why when we opened the new high school, on day one we had, teachers that had to float from room to room, because we did not have enough class space. Staff told this administration that what was needed but Lewis turned a deaf ear and did it his way. Once again input was disregarded.

At every turn supporters of the bond claim that voters voted against the bond because they are against doing what is right for kids-- this just is not true. Voters voted against this administration being in charge of new money after a proven track record that Larry Lewis and his administration will not listen to his staff, or this community. A vote against the bond was not a vote against children, but against this current administration. You do not give a blank check to someone who continually pulls the district to lower levels than ever before.

Look at the graduation rate. Over 50 seniors did not pass the exit level TAKS test. The exit level results in the areas of Math and Science are deplorable (the 30% range). Repeatedly we are told that this superintendent will bring students to greater levels of success than ever before, but we still are not there. Dr. Lewis is always saying that we need to look at the research--well, research says that lower classes sizes will result in higher academic success. Rather than spending huge amounts of money on an International Baccalaureate program for the few, put the money with the regular and lower academic success students and add additional teachers for those students so we can get the higher academic success. Research those schools that have an IB program and it shows that they graduate less than 2% of their students from the Diploma Program. This is just another program that is being forced on this district’s teachers and students just so it can look good on the superintendent's resume'.

We have a good school system with great kids, teachers, and staff, but their input and the community’s input is routinely ignored. "Children First" must be more than a slogan, it should be our first concern. Let’s put ‘children first’ and get someone at Centre Street that wants what is best for our kids. Our Board of Trustees must ask themselves, will they allow this feud to continue within the realms of the community or will they wake up and do the right thing and replace Dr. Lewis with someone that truly will put "Children First?"

interestedcitizen, says:

Two points.

RichardG. Is it possible that CANU can't open your exhibits or that CANU can't read the exhibits that you posted? They were kind of hazy when I opened them. Is this a technical problem with Pegnews, is it a problem with your scanner, or is it a problem with the way I am opening them? Also, even though I tried to enlarge the images, they were still difficult to read.

Next, I have been informed that I engaged in "ad hominem" when I called Lewis' "team of eight" minus Morris, a group of "yes men." I do ask the question, though, why do these people who are supposed to be trustees, not ask reasonable questions of the superintendent? The lines of authority have the trustees at the top of the organization chart. They are supposed to direct the chief executive. The chief executive is not supposed to direct them.

Will someone raise the question through a news article about the test scores? Will someone ask why, if 6th graders are suffering in their math and science scores, we should be lamenting the curtailment of electives such as karate?

Can we begin to discuss whether or not a stand alone 6th grade campus at the former 4th grade center is such a bad idea? Why should 6th graders be deciding what electives they should be taking, given that we have information that they are underperforming in math and science? Isn't there a point where a child-centered approach fails to accomplish the job, given that there is ample evidence that the U.S. is not globally competitive in math and science? Shouldn't adults direct the education of young children, rather than letting children decide?

jefmelch, says:

I'm sort of curious as to why that building is configured for middle-grades anyhow.

Two years back, at the time the Houston Elementary demolition effort was underway, that same building was the 4th grade center.

IF the May 2007 bond had passed, the administration tells Board Member Marjorie King, then that same building would be used for the children being displaced from Pleasant Run or West Main during that demoltion effort.

So the old use and the district's anticipated use was as a lower elementary center.

But at the June Board meeting the Superintendent told the board it had been set for 6th, or 7th, or 8th graders. And that since the district needed elementary space it would be forced into use as a 6th grade center. Board memeber Marie Elliot pointed out that the same kids who were shuttled off to that building as 4th graders are going to be the ones there as 6th graders, but this line of questioning was closed quickly.

The discussion instead focused on the problem of flip-flopping hundreds of 6th graders per hour back and forth from the classroom to specialized activity centers for karate, band, theater, etc.

As important as those may be, it's not clear that the same problems occured or would have occured had that campus been put back into use for 4th grade. Nor was there any discussion of using that building for a selection of more than one grade, a mix of Dr Lewis's preferred 6th, 7th and 8th graders -- who are all on a track with similar electives such that transport between classrooms and activity centers are minimized.

Then there's the issue of having police and administrative occupancy of nearby buildings ... Assuming we NEED, in fact, so many administrators what exactly drove the plan to restore the apparently already much too small Centre Street facility? Do we have more staff than we planned for or did we plan the building badly?