remoned

That's the best, fairest and most accurate assessment I've seen written about LISD this year.

Kudos!

Maybe the CPA's had aligned themselves. ;o)

According to my sources, the law firm could'nt find anything on Lewis that would satisfy the anti-Lewis contingent, with regards to the three areas the firm was hired to investigate. Hence, the suggestion was made that they thought maybe they were onto something in the area of finances and wanted to follow that lead.

A few things. First, Lancaster has already been audited, and no 'outstanding' fiscal irregularities were reported. Unless you subscribe to the belief that the reason the conservator is here, is because of just such a fact.

If that is indeed the case, then the job of said conservator is to monitor the districts finances, and insure that there aren't any continued 'outstanding' fiscal irregularities. Given the fact that neither the audit itself, or the conservator have reported of any fiscal irregularities, what then does the law firm hope to produce, that the aforemention two inquiring bodies have yet to uncover?

The skeptic in me concludes that the 'firm' has done all they can do with regards to their investigation but will continue to milk the district to the tune of $800 an hour for as long as they're allowed. In this case, til the end of the month. (Lead attorney is paid $300 an hr, the assts are paid up to $250, if memory serves)

If this investigation comes back 'empty' as it looks like there's a good chance that it will, how does this board put a spin on all the money spent in legal fees, when the budget is supposedly in such financial distress?

The above mentioned meeting moved from 10/13 to 10/14. I typed 10/18 in err.

Finally we agree on some things.

first, again as I was not present at whatever meeting you suggest Ron Rowell made his speech, then again I cannot comment to that regard. So i won;t. If you say he said what he did, I'll take your word for it. I am not disputing that fact.

What am I disputing then? Im glad you asked. First, before I dispute that let me ask this: Why was a meeting held with two board members missing from said meeting, as you claim? And if you're answer is, that board meetings can not be held up to accomodate one individual or more, in this case, then i agree with you. The question then becomes why the board president rescheduled last monday nights meeting to tuesay 10/18 simply because one of her personal supporters on the board, Mehia, could not be present on monday night. You yourself just stated that at the Ron Rowell meeting, it went ahead as planned with two board members absent, who just so happen to oppose the board president most times. Interesting.

And again, no one, not myself, nor any board member have refuted any remarks attributed to Ron Rowell at any board meetings, as you keep wanting to claim I'm doing. You have wuite the way of trying to twist my words when they don't meet your stamp of approval. Much like the board president does during board meetings when she's caught lying, or when she has to cover for any of the other board memebrs who seem to be stuck like deer in headlights, and feed them their thoughts to help guide them through their immediate struggle.

Much liek the board president did, when asked during the meeting why she told the papers that a board conservator was coming, when according to TEA, again, that determination had not yet taken place. To which the Dallas Morning News had to issue a retraction on the statement provided them, again by the board president.

Following that, at the meeting in which Kirkland and Elliot saought to 'sanction' the board president, yet another example of the board president hemming and hawing, as she tried to get another board member to agree with her explanation as to why she leaked said information, as you say. I'm sure you remember the conversation, where Mrs. mejia had no idea what the board president was referring to, until the board president, again, as she's done a time or two since, preceded to tell her what she thought. as if the woman can't arrive to a credible conclusion if left to her own device.

Following THAT meeting, was the report in the paper detialing the Paper's converstaion with the TEA president, which is NOT classified as heresay, go back and research the definiton of the word. heresay is established, when you heard that someone else said... Not a direct link between you and whatever source you claim. In this case the papers conversation with their source, the TEA pres. directly.

The audit itself is not sufficient enough, because it does not state matter of factly that the reason a conservator was sent to the district is BECAUSE... it simply gives options, and a conclusion is drawn thusly. Which, is generally good enough, except... consider this: For what reasons are conservators sent to districts to monitor, to begin with. The general answer is due to districts in constant states of dire finacial stability.

Why then, is it fitting to send one to LISD, when according to state reports, 4 out of the last 5 years, LISD has scored a rating of average, above average and even a superior marking on its end of the year financial reports? That hardly screams to the state of Texas that a conservator need be sent.

What it's time to put to rest, is the assumption that Dr. Lewis is somehow guilty of running this district into the ground, when it was already underground when he took over. If anything, the presence of a conservator here has done, is cleared the man of any such suggestions, as since DAMM has been here, there have been no reports of gross misconduct, mismanagement of funds, and the like, as rumors have persisted in the community since Lewis took over in 2003.. with the board president and her contingent leading the charge.

You say you think the meetings have become less contentious since Morris has become the president? I hate to have seen them before, because they're a sheer circus as is. And regretfully, although you appear to have me marked as "Check", trhe problem is, the conservator was not present before Morris became president, so he based his opinion on what he's witnessed during roughly the same amount of time that i have. I believe that's "Check and mate".

I agree with you on the fact that Kirkland twists his face, shakes his head, raises his voice and shows anger in his speech. It's also no secret, to anyone who's visited a board meeting, that he'as also extremely intelligent and well versed on the issues presented before the board, iclusing and up to, proper protocol with regards to running a boar dmeeting, and making motions.... than just about anyone else up there. Regretfully, even you, can't say the same for the board pres. now can you?

If he's angry, perhaps he has a right to be. To see this board operate under the guise of "Children first" yet the children go without supplies, and votes for support with regards to various programs suggested and implemented designed to advance the level of academic excellence as well as expectation here in the district, is tragic. And before you pretend to inform me as to what the board president is for, I have a copy of her voting record from 2006-2008. 29 vites "no" not a SINLGE vote "yes" to anything. if i was a board member that actually cared about this district, i'd be pissed off too. You've spent $30,000 in 2 months on legal fees and conservators pay, what's he get up to $480 a day? The lawyers get $250 an hour, unimited... and you pretend to be concerned with the budget? Liars. All of them. I said it. And there's your proof. unless of course you're a Morris apologetic, or a Lewis basher.

I've stated countless times, to no avail, I could care less about Dr. lewis, this isn't about him, as much as it is about standing up for what's right. And Morris has had a personal agenda against himsince before she took over as board pres. She has stood outside the polls and platformed under, "vote me as the next president and i'll get rid of Dr. Lewis".... and up to date have suspended him for what exactly? I know, the real reason. Do you? And it's not what was reported on channel 4, it has nothing to do with the budget or with job performance. More I think of it, neither does the investigation. Weird.

And to her credit, the board pres. is nothing, if not consistent, beacuse she has a history of contentious behavior dating back to her days when she filed suit against SMU, and the IRS to which whom she filed discriminatory claims against.

Who's to say that the next admin that comes in won;t fall prey to likewise treatment? She does after all have a history of getting underneath Superintendent's sleeves, even prior to Lewis arrival.

Kirkland and Elliot tried to have Morris publicly reprimanded because the information she released to the press, was in fact , at that point and time, not correct. it has nothing to do with wanting to silence her. Although, given the fact that everytime she opens her mouth... well.... I'll leave that alone. Up until this point I've tried to refrain from attcaking anyone personally. Just the facts, maam.

As for having someone other than Lewis speak to the press, I agree with you, it'd be nice to hear from the conservator every once in a while. So that we can get a supposed unbiased opinion of what's going on here in the district. Rather than board's obvious fractioned opinions, one way or the other.

And to my kowledge, and i'll have to go back and look at the audit report, but didn't TEA do just that? Come in and rubber stamp (Validate)pretty much what the district was already doing, by way of it's administration? Correct me if i'm wrong. other than minor suggestions here and there, what major "Blockbusting news" did the audit mention as LISD needeing to amend or face the wrath of being taken over by the district? As folk like to claim.

Disgusted,

I would'nt readily characterize enrollment in LISD as being low, simply because they fell short of their 'projected' numbers based on previous years growth. But we could go back and forth on that all day.

Allow me to address a statement or two you made, that I find an over exaggeration, if not misleading.

"The bottom line if both schools failed to make AYP this year the district has to be replace the whole teaching staff and administrators. "

Using your rationale then half the schools in the state of Texas are in danger of being shut down, as you claimed 2 Lancaster schools were,in your previous message. Including as I listed previously, schools in Cedar Hill, Dallas, Desoto, Lewisville, Mesquite, Plano, and Richardson. Just about a representative from every ISD in Dallas County with the notable exception of Highland Park. All containing schools that failed to meet AYP requirements, ranging from 2-56 schools per ISD.

TEA says this, regarding AYP: "If a campus, district, or state that is receiving Title I, Part A funds fails to meet AYP for two consecutive years, that campus, district, or state is subject to certain requirements such as offering supplemental education services, offering school choice, and/or taking corrective actions."

That hardly says emphatically, "We're coming in and taking over". That is simply one of their options.

2 things:

1. I was not at the meeting which you claim Ron Rowell stood up and responded to Carolyn morris' question. So I will not pretend to understand Ron's rationale behind making whatever statements you attribute to him.

I have, however read Conservator's Damm report, which stated that the contentious behavior between the board seems to have settled. Damm is a state representative as well, what do you attribute his mischaracterization of the board meetings to? Apparently you attend the same meetings I do. Do you honestly believe Mr. Damm believes what he reported back to TEA, as truth? I don't. If Damm actually does think the contentiousness between the board has settled, then he obviously isnt qualified to do the job they sent him down here to do, which in turn would explain alot. About what he has and has not done, since his arrival months ago. Which again, inclusing the report he made, cause me, for one, to start questioning his agenda.

Also, again, I have it not only on the Newpapers report of their CONVERSATION with the TEA president, one could hardly call that heresay, but also confirmation from two board members who are very knowelable on the subject, one would think. So I choose to base my opinions on the matter, from the information I've gathered that i've read for myself, and have been told me from people that I trust, in the community, who sit on the board coiencedentally. I've seen the board president lie through her teeth, on more than one ocassion, and so has anyone who attends the meetings, so her word carrys little validity, if any with me, personally.

And you can put a 'spin' on what lying is as opposed to strectching the truth, playing with the numbers, forgetting statements you told to the press, etc.. all you want. But educated people know better. And the people running the show at LISD, one in particular, is a habitual liar. Who only tries to 'spin' doctor out of the hole they find themselves in, once it's been proven that the jig is up.

One thing i find funny is that you question the loyalties of Lancaster Today. I used to do likewise, because for the life of me i could'nt figure out why a newspaper that's being PAID for by the district, can't find it's way to report any POSITIVE press on the district, once in a while. Instead of seizing the opportunity to jump on the 'sensationalism' band wagon like everyone else. Amazing how folk look at the same source and see different things.

"Interested" At the sat board meet, it was announced that the 2008 AEIS numbers won't be released until November. No word as to why the '06-'07 numbers are'nt posted on the site.

But for you viewing pleasure, i have provided the 2007 numbers courtesy of TEA.

DISTRICT NAME: LANCASTER ISD DISTRICT NUMBER: 057913 ACCOUNTABILITY RATING: Academically Acceptable
GOLD PERFORMANCE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: NONE

001 LANCASTER H S Academically Unacceptable

041 LANCASTER MIDDLE Academically Acceptable
101 PLEASANT RUN EL Academically Acceptable
102 HOUSTON EL Academically Acceptable
103 WEST MAIN EL Academically Acceptable
106 ROSA PARKS/MILLBROOK EL Academically Acceptable
107 ROLLING HILLS EL Academically Unacceptable
109 BELT LINE EL Academically Acceptable
110 LANCASTER EL Academically Acceptable

Again, these are last years numbers. As this year Rolling Hills, has been rated as Academically Acceptable... and if i'm not mistaken, one of the elementaries, either Houston School, Pleasant Run, or West Main, received 'recognized' status.

"DISGUSTED" Here are the AYP numbers from the TEA website, www.texaseducationagency.org , detailing the 2008 Preliminary findings per each school in the state of TEXAS.

According to this, LISD has 2 schools listed as not meeting AYP standards this year, one more than was reported at the saturday board meeting, and one less than you were led to believe.

As a quick summation, LISD has 2 schools not meeting the mark, as does Cedar Hill. Desoto has 3. Dallas has 56. But in all fairness Dallas probably has just as many if not moree that met because of the sheer numbers of schools it has.

Which again is why i say that comparing Dallas numbers to LISD, is unfair.

By the way, Plano also has 2 that didn't meet the mark. Richardson has 3. Lewisville has 6. Mesquite has 9.

I added those for all the people who like to compare Lancaster with every other school district in Dallas County.

But I digress, here you go.

LANCASTER H S 001 MISSED AYP MATHEMATICS (PERFORMANCE) STAGE 3
LANCASTER MIDDLE 041 MISSED AYP READING (PERFORMANCE) AND MATHEMATICS (PERFORMANCE) STAGE 3
PLEASANT RUN EL 101 MEETS AYP NONE
HOUSTON EL 102 MEETS AYP NONE
WEST MAIN EL 103 MEETS AYP NONE
ROSA PARKS/MILLBROOK EL 106 MEETS AYP NONE
ROLLING HILLS EL 107 MEETS AYP NONE
BELT LINE EL 109 MEETS AYP NONE
LANCASTER EL 110 MEETS AYP

DESOTO H S 001 MISSED AYP READING (PERFORMANCE) AND MATHEMATICS (PERFORMANCE)
D H S FRESHMAN CAMPUS 002 MEETS AYP RESULTS OF SMALL NUMBER ANALYSIS
P A S S LEARNING CENTER 007 NOT EVALUATED OTHER
DESOTO EAST MIDDLE SCHOOL 041 MISSED AYP READING (PERFORMANCE) AND MATHEMATICS (PERFORMANCE)
DESOTO WEST MIDDLE SCHOOL 042 MISSED AYP MATHEMATICS (PERFORMANCE)
CURTISTENE S MCCOWAN MIDDLE 043 NOT EVALUATED NEW CAMPUS
RUBY YOUNG EL 102 MEETS AYP
NORTHSIDE EL 103 MEETS AYP NONE
AMBER TERRACE ELEMENTARY 104 MEETS AYP NONE
THE MEADOWS ELEMENTARY 106 MEETS AYP
COCKRELL HILL EL 107 MEETS AYP
FRANK D MOATES EL 108 MEETS AYP NONE
WOODRIDGE EL 109 MEETS AYP

CEDAR HILL HIGH SCHOOL 001 MISSED AYP MATHEMATICS (PERFORMANCE)
NINTH GRADE CENTER 002 MEETS AYP RESULTS OF SMALL NUMBER ANALYSIS
JJAEP 007 NOT EVALUATED OTHER
W S PERMENTER MIDDLE SCHOOL 041 MISSED AYP MATHEMATICS (PERFORMANCE) NONE
BESSIE COLEMAN MIDDLE SCHOOL 042 MEETS AYP NONE
BRAY ELEMENTARY 101 MEETS AYP NONE
PLUMMER ELEMENTARY 102 MEETS AYP NONE
WEST INTERMEDIATE 103 MEETS AYP NONE
HIGH POINTE ELEMENTARY 104 MEETS AYP NONE
HIGHLANDS ELEMENTARY 105 MEETS AYP NONE
BELT LINE INTERMEDIATE 106 MEETS AYP NONE
WATERFORD OAKS ELEMENTARY 107 MEETS AYP NONE
LAKERIDGE ELEMENTARY 108 MEETS AYP
JOE WILSON INTERMEDIATE 109 MEETS AYP

Jef, maybe you should apply for a job in the distrcit?

=o)

BTW, is anyone else aware that a local ISD passed a budget that their board knew going in, would be negative $6 mil dollars? (And it isn't Lancaster, Cedar Hill or Dallas)

Where's the morning News when you need them?

JEF I appreciate your numbers. I'll get back to you on those or either concede defeat, but for now i want to adress "DISGUSTED".

As a matter of FACT, at today's saturday board meeting 10/18, 1:20 p.m. The topic of AYP did, in fact come up, due to the board president asking how many schools in LISD had 'Monitors'. Confusing the AYP 'Intervention' personnel with 'Conservators'. And it is, in fact, NOT true, that Lancaster has 3 schools that failed to meet the AYP standards, as of this school year.

In years PREVIOUS, including and, up to last year 2007, there were 3 schools, including Rolling Hills elementary which you named in your email, that fit the bill.

As of today this year, and as of the date of this writing, 10/18 Rolling Hills and the other school are NOT rated as 'academically unacceptable' and therefore do not meet the state's requirement of an AYP sponsored 'intervention' team, which consists of one in house personnell, in thie case Eugene Young, and one outside personnel, a Mr. Parker from Desoto ISD, which the state employs. (i.e. the state pays for, not LISD. YOung's services are free of charge, unless you count his regular LISD salary as asst. Superintendant.)

But again, the ONLY school in LISD that as of today is involved in the 'Intervention' program is the high school, which did not meet the state requirememnts for scoring an 'acceptable' rating, in one area.

This from the mouth of Eugene young, himself, as well as Pat Sadberry.

As for teachers leaving, that could be due to several reasons depending on which teacher you ask. I'm sure there are those who would tell you that teachers are leaving by the bus loads because they are unhappy with the adminstration, i.e., Dr. Lewis. I kinow of 3 teachers who have joined Desoto ISD this year alone, and at least one of them admits that they would have loved to have stayed in LISD except for the fact that they were'nt happy working underneath the board pres. So, we can play this game all day.

Jef mentioned that the first year Dr. Lewis arrived, the turnover rate was the greatest. What also needs be mentioned is that when Dr. Lewis arrived, teachers who were not certified, were either replaced, relocated, or ASKED to get certified by a certain date, regardless of how long they'd taught.

Going into year two of Dr. Lewis' tenure, 80% of LISD teachers had been certified. Regretfully I can't tell you what that number is up from, but there was an increase in the number of 'certified' teachers.

And as Jef, pointed out again, "Turnover is indeed going down".

Lancaster is NOT in a state of serious disaster, unless by that you are referring to, whose hands, the fate of the district resides in. (The boards, not the superintendants)

And there are'nt any schools in Lancaster, that are in danger of being closed down.

"Interested",

First, I never called you a lie. I said you misqouted me. "However, allow me to correct your misquoting of MY statement." There's a difference.

Second, I think my statements stand alone, I don't see where the confusion lies, but allow me to clarify. The lie regarding what was told one board member to another as to why the conservator is here, is the first part of the lie. (I have the newspapers report, and the statement of the TEA president attributing the reasons for the conservator being sent, I have also been told firts hand by 2 board members that have confirmed the fact).

The second part is that the board president denies the claim. And I am well aware of the board president's posturing at a meeting denying the claim, but as i mentioned in other posts I'm also aware of the board president being caught in numerous lies in the same venues. You draw your own conclusions. If the newspaper made the report up, the newspaper puts itself at risk to legal suits. I'll give the newspaper credit enough to be smarter than that.

As for the TEA audit, I have a copy. I can post it for you if you'd like. Leaving it up to Robert Scott or whomever as to which route to take to handle the situation hardly say that the TEA sent a conservator to the district due to the financial instability of the district, as has been reported by again, board member(s) to say the least. That's a case of playing to the public, who at best, are unaware of the inner workings of what's going on behind the sxcens, i.e. power plays, and witch hunts, yet they know all too well the rumors of stealing, mismanagement, failing test scores, etc. I call it playing to the court of public perception. In most cases perception is reality. As for the board pres.' remarks concerning the DMN article, "I didn't hear her flatly deny at the Board meeting that she had spoken to the press about the deficit. I did hear her say she hadn't read the article and didn't know what the article said. She refused to be misquoted." Please. The woman flat out pretended to have no knowledge of even having talked to a newspaper. Stop making excuses for her. Every time she's been caught in a lie, she gets a sudden case of amnesia. If, what you say is true, that no one had any knowledge of what the final budget deficit could be, then why would you give ANY number to the press, instead of waiting until you had valid numbers with which to back up any claims? I'll allow you to spin that one as you will.

"The whole truth: Jefmelch's comment pretty well puts to rest the truth that Lancaster's TAKS results put Lancaster at the bottom of area districts. My response above shows that Lancaster was further behind DeSoto and Cedar Hill on 11th grade TAKS in 2006 than it was in 2003, after three years of Lewis' tenure."

We're talking about 2008 not 2006. Show me 2008 numbers. Or the equivalent, i.e. the most recent numbers reported by the state. I keep bringing up progress made by the district now, you keep countering with what happened in 1993, and now 2006.

"Again, no one is saying Lancaster hasn't made gains on TAKS. However, we are questioning what that means, in light of the fact that the gap between our performance on SAT and national and state performance on SAT remains excessively large"

You wouldn't be able to tell that no one is denying that Lancaster has made gains on the TAKS due to the amount of rebuttle I've gotten by stating those facts, and I hear and accept your comments on the SAT'S. However, again, being that LISD continues to make strides in the are of rising test scores (TAKS), then it should be just a matter of time before they close gaps in other areas of testing, including SAT scores, as well. Is my only point.

Just FYI, and for anyone interested, rumor around the communities from Red oak, to Lancaster, has it that the ax will be wsung on Dr. Lewis, either at todays 1:30 meeting with the teachers, or monday nights board meet. I'm on my up ther now. I'll update later.

"Interested" I have no idea why LISD has no current AEIS data on it's website, but I'll make it a point to ask that question during the next 'citizen's comments' portion of the next board meeting. Although, since the forum is not a Q and A session, i won't readily be given an answer, so maybe I'll shoot the board staff an email instead. ut rest assured, i'm ontop of it.

Also, I appreciate the insightfulness and quality of your first response. It's full of data and research and very thought provoking opinions, on your behalf.

However, concerning your second reply, regarding my contributions in one of my previous admissions.... not so much.

I stand corrected on the Lancaster today article regarding the ommission of Dr. Lewis' budget updates. I went back and took anothe rlook at the article and sure enough, I glossed right over the 10/9 date, that the paper lists as it's source of reference. I'm man enough to admit that I erred.

However, allow me to correct your misquoting of MY statement.

I never said Mrs. Morris made a false statement about why the conservator was here. first of all I made careful mention not to call any board member by name in that piece. What i said of the board president, Mrs. Morris, was that the newspaper report, reported that accroding to their conversation with the TEA president, HE claimed that the reason a concervator was sent to the district was at the request of Mrs. Morris. The paper also goes on to say that she denies the claim. Well, someone's lieng, either the TEA president, Mrs. Moriss, or the newspaper. But the report is factual.

Secondly, I never names the board member that made the claim as to why the conservator came to town, nor did I mention that the board president did so, the term I normally use to refer to Mrs. Morris. But FYI the board member that made the remark was Mrs. Mexia, to board member Ed Kirkland... again, at the 9/8 board meet. I was there. Were you?

I have no idea who Ron Rowell is, so I'm in no position to comment on whomever he is.

Although I will say, with regards to Mrs. Morriss' posturing at board meetings, she also feigned ignorance to the fact that she didn't know the law firm was going to show up at the board meeting that they were hired at, but was soundly embarrased when the law assistant corrected her by refuting her claim, by stating, "Yes, you should have known we were coming, as in accordacne with the conversation you had with Mr. Jones". He of the Jones law firm which was hired. So, spin that how you will.

I'll say this of Mr. Damm, I had high hopes for him and his time spent her ein the district, but after his latest report and the statement he made that the contention between the board seems to have eased, (And i'm paraphrasing), having attended every board meeting since BEFORE he made such a statement and seen how each board meeting is more of a circus than the next... I begin to question his judgement, if not his agenda.

You say according to the DMN article the number Mrs. Morriss stated was $3.6 mil and not $4 mil. Okay, we'll use your number. In either event, again at the 10/14 board meeting, when pressed on the matter, she has no knowledge of any newspaper reports or remarks attributed to the paper by herself.

I stand on the fact that there are no LIEs in my claims. Unlike yourself, who openly boasts "to the best of my knowledge..." I had provided the facts as I've switrnessed first hand. "To the best of my knowledge" loosely translates to "In actuality, I have no idea".

Well, I do. Although I appreciate your thoughtful debate.

ACNTX, according to their article has heard/seen the same rumors, inuendo, and negative press that i come on here to refute. Welcome ACNTX, but be forewarned, it's just a matter of time before you're mail is picked apart, scrutinized and labeled as mistruths as well.

But keep the faith. There are those of us who actually see the positives that are occuring here in our city.

Travis, you continue to mock a student proud of his district, as well as made a joke, albeit a poor one... and quite racy at that, at blogger Cho's expense. (and they likey teh maths..long time!) Yet you fail to see the humor in the long haired hippy remark?

My apologies if you took offense to MY attempt at humor, however it looks like the pot calls the kettle black.

And for the record, I'm not here to prove points or bring credence to my own stance. My goal is simply to bring the truth of what goes on behind the scenes and here at LISD board meetings so that folk, like yourself, can have the full grasp of information from which to formulate opinions.

Instead of simply basing them on the wealth of negative stories written and reported on in the press, shown on tv, and spread around the communities by way of rumors and gossip.

Someone asked yesterday, would all this be reported if it was not true? There's 2 sides or more to a story. Why only report one? Which everyone knows, regarding the media... "Controvery creates ratings, and sex sells". It's this type of approach that's killing out society as is. Then we wonder why our youth, our morals, and our standards are going to hell in a handbasket.

I for one,am tired of seeing only the negative press written and covered in this district, usually, again, based on rumors and unfounded allegations.

Yet when I come on and say, there really are some good things going on here in this district, folk like yourself, counter that with, skepticism and refute.

On the other hand someone can come on and report that Dr. Lewis is stealing money and everyone who read's this will take it as gospel.

So, you continue to , berate, belittle and bemoan the students of Lancaster and their district, I'm sure the people you educate, will be quite proud of you.

Interested, your still comparing LISD to statewide scores, rather than LISD 2003, to LISD 2008.

To that regard one can always argue the glass being half empty as opposed to half full.

Jeff, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, he's nothing more than a republican shill. Wait... I'm accused of being a Dr. Lewis shill... how ironic. (One bad joke deserves another, eh?) And comparing Dallas ISD to lancaster, is comparing apples to oranges as Dallas ISD has a totality of schools for which to balance it's numbers out, does it not? Where's Lancaster compared to other one horse schools/towns like Desoto, and Cedar Hill? I think that'd be a more apt comparison.

"Let me repeat. Scores ARE rising. But not any faster than "inflation", as evidenced by other districts" Since when is rising scores NOT a good thing? Regardless of the rate at which progress is made? This is the kind of "rain on the parade" media and misinformed community reporting that has the world at large viewing Lancaster in a bad light as is.

Travis, you have some good points. "would we hear about any of this if there weren't serious problems within the Lancaster school district? Are we to assume everything is just fine?"

First, according to conservator Damms last report, "Contention between the board is at a much better level now, and everyone seems to be getting along fine". Visit a school board meeting. Then answer the obvious question you'll ask yourself: "1. What board meetings is he attending? and 2. What's his agenda?"

"If this is simply a matter of personality conflicts, then maybe all the idiots involved need to be fired and replaced with people who can get on with the business of education instead of continual pissing contests." I agree wholeheartedly. instead reality is such that, it IS a simple matter of a pissing contest. any intelligent person attending any board meet can deduce as such. Question: If all the negative uproar is indeed about poor performance, why does Dr. Lewis still have a job? The board is well within their right to release him based on failing to perform upto the task which they hired him for.

Also, if the rumors circulating throughout the community and in published reports of mismangement of funds, and outstanding budget shortcomings, and gross neglect and abuse of district credit cards/monies is all true, then why has he not been fired? The conservators investigation alone would have been sufficient enough to grant the board the approval, is needed, to release him.

Thusly, if his copnduct is so bad, or detrimental that it deserves to be investigated, why are the investigation charges as frivoulous as "insubordination to the board president" which one would think the board had the power to fire the man, for that alone.... in addition to charges of mail tampering , and witholding information from the board president and not passing it along ina timely fashion. We're waisting tax payers dolllars to the tune of $30 grand a month on this? Again, if these are the facts as reported or believed by the board, why is'nt he fired?

Any intelligent person can obviously see the smear campaign in effect. "Destroy the character and reputation of said individual by ruining his reputation in the community, as well as gain some momentum in the court of public opinion. None of this is about performance evaluation. Let eveyone on here tell it, he has'nt done squat jobwise, test wise, or anything else. Then, why is he not fired? Gieven the fact that the majority vote of the board, is unhappy with him? it's not rocket science. My thing is, don;t feed me your "It's all about the children" line, when your taking money ut of the childrens classrooms as well as their teachers salaries, and spending it on investigations and conservators that you requested, despite the audit findings of little to no wrongdoings. When you have the autonomy to release the man, as his employer, if you are not happy with his work. Riddle me that, Batman.

Finally, "Maybe the kids gets it, but some lessons in grammar, spell check, and sentence structure, wouldn't hurt." nor would a haircut, what are you, 4oish?

In the current 10/16 edition of lancaster Today,there's an article written by a LISD junior and Lanacaster Today staff member which sums it up.

"Why do so many people have so many negative things to say about Lancaster ISD? What have we done, or what haven't we done? Everyone has an idea of why LISD is so badly spoken of, and here's mine:
My dad once told me that despite all of your achievements, people gravitate towards your errors. Society always seem to focus on the blunders rather than the victories.
We have had some good things go on academically at our school. AcDec, JROTC, and trhe international Bacculaureate, just to name the most significant. Do we ever hear about these things in the local news? Yes, but less often than necessary. The community is weighed down with the allegations, crime, misconduct and failure that unfortunately go on at Lancaster high School. Very few locals are even presented with information concerning the accomplishments, feats and humanity that go on here also. And if they do have that information, it is often brushed aside as a fluke. This drives people to believe that Lancaster has nothing more to offer than deliquent minority children who don;t have the skills to get ahead in life. I beg to differ. Since being in Lancaster ISD, I have made some of the most rewarding decisions of my life.
The teachers I have are deeply intellectual ands give me the tools I use in and out of the school. My classmates are spirited individuals who understand each other.
Our principals do so much to keep the focus level up and seem determined to erase any doubt in people's minds that Lancaster students aren't capable of doing what any other district can. I don;t get discouraged when people judge what goes on at my school because I know what my teachers and administrators have brought to the table. But just like any othe rproud student at lancaster, i become irritated when people approach me with constructive criticism about my school.
No one has the right to judge me, my classmates, or our level of intellect without a balanced examination of our strengths and our weaknesses. Sure we make mistakes, but who doesn't? Once anyone can answer that question, then only then will i consider their opinion. but until then, i will remain a proud, rational, exemplary student who is a product of the instruction that tkaes place at LISD."

This kid gets it. Kudos.

First of all, "Interested", being that Dr. Lewis took over in 2003, the question asked is what happened with the previous admin between the numbers of 1993, which you taught, and the ten years leading up to 2003, when Lewis took over? I gave you the increases in test scores TAKS wise, as accorded by Dallas Morning news, for one, which show improved test scores from then until now, 2003-2008. I'm assuming, and correct me if I'm wrong, that your'w wanting to blame lewis for the low performing scores that were already here before he arrived. Again, you referenced 1993, a decade before he took the job.

I'll accept your claims on the SAT numbers and averages, however the comments I've made have been with regards to published TAKS scores, which is the basis for academic performance and school evaluations here in the state of Texas, not SAT scores. Howvwer I will also contend that as the TAKS scores across the board for the school district continue to rise, as with a trickle down effect, the SAT scores should eventually start to rise as well. One must build a base first, before attempting to build a structure.

As for not being concerned with other districts that my children will have to compete with, again this district has in house issues and concerns that it must FIRST fix, before worrying about contending abroad. One hand washes the other. Instead of worrying so much about what 'others' are doing, I prefer to worry about fixing 'us'. Once that is accomplished, everything else works itself out. In addittion, the implementation of the International Baccularate curriculum, reporetedly the highest rated curriculum in the world, now functioning here in lancaster, should ALSO solve alot of the low performing test scores, as well as render SAt scores and the like obsolete. but I'm sure doubters and naysayers have some negative speil about that accomplishement of LISD as well.

Complacency begins when critics of progress, including parents, students and bloggers tear down every positive stride made within the district no matter how great or small, case in point: the hiring of AP instructors, by Dr. Lewis who came in and attempted to raise the level of academic excellence and expectation in the classrooms, thereby causing a myriad of students and parents to complain that their initial test grades were so low, because they had not been used to being challenged on a higher academic level. They all wanted the teachers fired, instead of accepting the fact that the school and the community now expect, no demand better. That's complacency. That's what happened at the high school in 2004. Want another example? When the current principals of certain under performing elementary schools were reassigned or released, or replaced... petitions were signed and enemies declared because Dr. Lewis would dare get rid of our principal and bring in some one else and expect of them to do the job that the current staff failed at. I could go on, but I digress.

FYI, the new stadium was built BEFORE the new school because it did'nt take as long to build. Ground was broken on both simultaneously. Rennovations for other schools as well as shortcomings on the stadium itself were the result of the rising costs of steel and labor, which change from day to day, let alone from the time of initial quoating of costs, to the time of finalization of structures. That's the cost of doing business in today's economy. Some things really are as simple as they seem, not everything has an ulterior motive. Except to the skeptics. Of course.

As for rennovations on other schools, again. Money ran out. Hence another bond was proposed to adress the very thing, but was voted down by the opposition.

As for lies and innuendo, and I speak of smear campaigning and presenting Lancaster ina bad light to the communities and in fact the world at large.

Lie - At the Sept 8th board meeting one board member stated to another that the reason LISD is under the watch of a financial conservator is because of the poor financial state the district has been in. Truth - According to a newspaper report published in the Lancaster Today shortly after the arrival of the conservator, according to the TEA president in Austin, the reason a conservator was sent to the district was at the request of the board president.

Lie - A current Dallas Morning News report states that the board president told them that the district's budget will fall $4 million short. Which, when asked about the statement at the 10/14 board meeting, she denies any knowledge of any newspaper statements attributed to her.

Truth - The district is facing around a $1.5 mil budget setback, unless a remedy is found including but not specifically, budget cutbacks, employee layoffs, or salary cuts.

Lie - several remarks have been made, at board meetings during community remarks, by apparent citizens and former staff members proclaiming LISD to be the worst of the worst in area school districts. With poor performing test scores.

Truth - Having all schools in the district with the exception of the h.s. pass all aspects of the TAKS, (The h.s. missed out by 5% points in one area of the 4 areas required), Contrasted with the reports that Desoto ISD had 3 schools failed and Dallas ISD has 6 high schools alone, not meet state standards, should lay that claim to rest. A claim that even the board president herself, remarked at a 9/8 board metting.

Lie - Leaked reports througout the community that LISD has up to $6 mil missing.

Truth - The last audit of LISD showed that less than 1% of the budget was in discrepency.

Lie - according to the 10/16 edition of the Lancaster Today, "Lewis' speech focused on teh academic improvements of students in LISD. He didn;t mention the financial and budget problems that are currently facing the district."

Truth - At the 10/14 board meeting, which the Lancaster Today referenced, Dr. lewis spent 45 mins to an hour detailing the budget shortcomings as well as a proposal to remedy the problem, in accordance with meetings he had with the conservator between 10/1 - 10/7, as well as meetings with over 60 LISD personnel (principles, etc.) And then proposed a budget amendment that would not see any layoffs of jobs, or any salary reductions.

Lie - Dr. Lewis inflated the attendance numbers in order to get more money for the district.

Truth - The formula used to 'project' upcoming attendance is based on current years attendance records in addition to current and previous years 'growth' records, hence giving you an 'estimated' total enrollment going into the upcoming year. Money is granted the districts in accordance. This year LISD fell shy of their "estimated projected growth" by 213 seats/kids. That translates roughly to about $1.1 mil in money granted the districts budget, that is being spent for seats that aren't being used.

I could go on. But the point is, all of the good this district has accomplished is constantly negated in the press and in the public by skeptics and critics all over. In favor of publishing the 'negative', which is usually stretched or simply untrue, yet peiople run with it as if it is the reported 'gospel'.

"To the absolute best of my knowledge there has NEVER"... seems to be crux of your debate, Jef. Apparently you don't attend many school board meetings, read many news papers concerning the subject, or watch as many one sided, negative school reports on LISD as the people who live here, who are routinely subjected to them on a routine basis. If you did then you would witness first hand all of which i just described as having been 'leaked', fed or reported to the various media outlets and community ears, as 'fact'.

Nor are you privy to, it seems, the community backlash here in Lancaster, as a result of such unfounded, and in actuality, untruthful inuendo...

The 'facts' as you stated are, that the results that Dr. Lewis and staff have yeilded in 5 years here, has the district headed in an upwards and positive direction, as contrasted with that which the media and it's 'insider' anti Larry Lewis contingent would have you believe. test scores are up, Lancaster is NOT the worst school district in the area, there IS good that is going on here in this district, and whether you like him or not Dr. Lewis HAS done an admiral job. But you'd never know that from any reports you've heard and or read in the press.

When you compare Lancaster's numbers to Lancaster's numbers BEFORE he arrived, therin lies the progress. I, as a Lancaster citizen, could care less about what's going on in Dallas, Highland Park, or anywhere else in the country. We're talking about Lancaster and it's progress made. Which naysayers would have the county at large, believe is headed backwards and not forwards, as again TEST RESULTS compared to LISD 2003 compared to 2008 clearly show.

And you're wrong, district scores are not below state levels with the possible exception of the high schools math scores. In every other area, and with every other school, in all areas, they have exceeded or passed state required levels. According to Dalas morning news published statewide TAKS scores.

As for Greg Stevensons comments, they don't dignify a response, except to say what i've said all along. I could care less about Dr. Lewis, i don't know the man. Nor have I agreed with every move of his, the 4 day school week being chief among them, however, what i HAVE seen is the progress made in this district under his tenure, and have witnessed the travesty that unfolds at every school board meeting, as a result of the witch hunt led by the board president and her cronies, to have the man removed by any means neccesary.. smear campaign to sway public perception, included.

Case in point, the current suspension did not come about as a result of his 'performance evaluation'... yet rather as a result of a parental complaint behind an incident that occurred at the Lancaster / Ennis football game. You do the math. If we can't get him on his performance, let's find 'something', anything to use to get rid of him.

I'm not about Dr. Lewis, I'm about what's right.

Jef I respect your opinion, especially as it is based, to the best of your knowledge on imperical data, and less on 'follow the mob' theology.

But as for every item of contention I have listed in this or previous reports with regards to what i call, 'false, misleading or outright lies and inuendo', I have first hand knowldge of by way of having witnessed such claims being made in board meetings, as well as newspaper reports I have, and newsreports I've seen first hand.

Therefore, my knowledge is not to the best of... my claims are factual.

Just returned from the LISD board meeting last night, and Dr. Lewis has indeed been suspended. The seating at the meeting was very packed with hardly a room to sit in, half filled with concerned citizens and the othe half consisting of LISD teachers and admin.

First a few facts, as I am awaiting the detailed reasons behind the suspension, as I left before they broached the evaluation, due to the fact the Board pres, moved the agenda to the last item of the night from it's original placement on the agenda. But first let's clear up a few of the misnomers that continue to plague the city of Lancaster and it's school district:

1) In the 5 years Dr. Lewis has been here, not only have test scores risen each year, but this year every school in the district with the exception of the high school passed every area of the TAKS test. These stats according to the latest Dallas Morning news releases. And the h.s. missed out on passing by 5% points, in one of the four required subjects. That's hardly what one would consider "failing test scores". But if you continue to tell a lie enough times, folk will obviously start to believe it.

2). The budget as scheduled, the budget will fall short $1.5 million dollars, and not the $4 milion dollars stated to the newspapers by the board president, who claims she has no knowledge of the newspapers statements, attributed to her. And the reasons for the shortcoming is due to LISD falling short of it's statewide projections of '08 attendance, based on the previous years growth of 500 kids per year. Hence in falling short 213 children under the projected number, the district will be CHARGED $1.8 million for those empty seats anyway. As a result a plan was presented in conjunction with conversations and actions taken between the superintendant, the staff and the principles of the district to devise away to remedy budget concerns without anyone having to lose their job, and without having to cut anyone's existing salry. And the result was several persons involved giving up various bonuses and incentive laced programs in their packages to maintain every employee in the district to stay as is. Wonderful news, right? Well the board president requested not to vote on the passing of the revised budget, until she could scrutinize the budget at a later date.

3). The board president also feigned fake interest in the concern of the districts budget, yet made no mention of the fact that one of the reasons the budget is as tight as it is, is due to excess spending of tax payers dollars from the general fund of the budget, going towards fees for the law firm she hired to investigate the superintendant, as well as the state conservator which, according to the TEA president in the newspapers months back, she requested herself. Another fact which she denys.

4) The lie that our school district is the lowest in the region is another urban myth that needs to be laid to rest. As alluded to earlier LISD has all but one school district pass all areas of the TAKS, by comparison Desoto ISD failed 3 schools. You do the math.

So now, at least temporarily, Dr. Lewis is out. No doubt Dr. Lewis naysayers all over are rejoicing. But if you think things up til this point have been bad, they're about to get alot worse.

Dr. Lewis will no doubt appeal the suspension, if not outright file suit for wrongful termination, which if they're insisting that they have a leg to stand on because of his performance, then as you can see, the recorded evidence, not the lies and heresy, clearly show that LISD has improved by leaps and bounds since his arrival in 2003. In which case, he should.

Not to mention LISD has passed every audit as well as every year end financial report scoring a mark of above average to superior, again, since he's been in office. That should dispell all of the "Stealing money, mismanagement of funds" talk. But again, people believe what lies are leaked/told to the press.

And in addition to that, the board president herself may soon be out of a job, if not facing legal actions, for ethics violations and actions unbecoming of a board member.

Here's to hoping the new superintendent can be allowed to come in and do their job without the board president meddling and micro managing, as she did with Dr. lewis, which according to board rules is supposedly against the law... and finally get this community behind his/her efforts. But if the last relationship between the super and the board pres. is any indication, if said person doesn't come in and cater to the beck and whim of the board pres., there's going to be hell to pay.

Again, I emplore any one interested to come sit in on the board meetings and see what's really going on for yourselves. And stop beleiving the blatant lies being released to the press. In an obvious attempt to run a smear campaign against the then sitting superintendant, Dr. Lewis.

Folk should write to the TEA alright, but write about something with which you have the facts to back them up.

I for one, am writing and complaining about the incompetency not to mention the numerous lies that the board president is caught telling at every meeting attended. To which she feigns ignorance or simply states, that she forgot. Not to mention the voting record of not having voted yes in 51 tries since 2006, when it came to the implementation of programs and suggestions designed to better the educational quality of the children in this district, on whose board she now helms.

There are alot of things wrong with the LISD district.... Dr. Lewis is and was not one of them.

It's amazing the amount of false inuendo that people knowingly and purposely put out to the public, knowing full well that most folk are like sheep... they'll believe what they read (usually on the internet orr through newspapers seeking controversial headlines), and they'll believe what they're told (usually lies and or half truths depending on which party one favors).

I encourage anyone concerned to attend the board meetings for themselves and you might just find that the majority of what you read, hear and see televised regarding LISD and or it's superintendent is a slander campaign.

Case in point, one reader syas they HEARD that Dr. Lewis used the police to imtimidate the audience at the June 16 school board meeting, I attend the meetings, the only time Dr. Lewis has the police to have anyone removed is for disorderly conduct, be it by supporters FOR or AGAINST him. There is no bias per partisan supporters.

Also, according to the Dallas Morning News... test Scores are on the rise, according to teachers and principles I've spoken with personally, the cause of low morale is due to the people running the board not with the superintendant.

Matter of factly LISD lost 3 teachers to the Desoto ISD district this year, and one of the teachers remarks were that they would've loved to stay but they simply could not tolerate the new board president. Who, coincidentally, has a history of threatening employees with job loss if they dont jump at her beck and call, dating back to when she worked at SMU, and a practice that still continues today. And finally the low standards of behavior has obviously been curtailed by virtue of the fact that the alternative school participation numbers are down from 300 last year to 45.

Point is, you can play with the numbers any way you want, but what you can't mask are the results. No matter how many times Dr. Lewis bashers find a media outlet to spew their lies to, detailing their firsthand knowledge of how LISD is a fast sinking ship, regardless of what the statistics, dare I say (THE DATA), shows.