Arkansas Blog

Aw, c'mon fellows! What else would you expect Chip Welch to say when he's representing the school board? That Brooks, the enemy, was a great guy?

KATV announced the other night that 80% of it viewers who participated in the station's poll disagreed with the board's decision to buy out Brooks' contract. In my circles, it was more like 95%.

Has anyone heard who is in line for the Superintendent Position? I heard through the grapevine that someone within the administration is being considered (or already has the position unofficialy).

As a parent, I'm concerned with the conduct of both sides. I think that it is important that the Board hires a person who has support by 5 or more of the Board Members.....this would help do away with the "racially divided" comments as well as hopefully help bridge the divide amoung the Board Members.

The students, parents, and teachers of the LRSD deserve a board which is influenced less by politics and more by what will impact the district as a whole.

I guess Katherine Mitchell's threatening letter to LRSD top administrators, although not authorized or legal, is having its desired effect. Surely you noticed the brief article in the Dem Gaz announcing that both Hugh Hattabaugh and Olivine Roberts have accepted jobs with the Charlotte/Mecklenberg District in North Carolina. They will be getting two dedicated educators who have been in the trenches - we will spend the summer with no one to oversee some vital areas of our district (which is exactly how a number of LRSD employees like it). In my opinion Hattabaugh is a bigger loss than Brooks. I'm afraid this is not the end of the resignations at that level, either, from what I hear.

Some quick responses:
The current board is the one by law empowered to vote on a buyout; they are not required to take a poll before voting. The rules are clear, if you want new board members, vote them in and quit crying.

As for Hattabaugh and Roberts, a pair of carpetbaggers, I say "don't let the door hit them." They were brought here to advance hatchetman Brooks' agenda. Their departure will open the door to perhaps someone with Arkansas ties that truly have our children at heart.

I think that supporters of Brooks should seriously reconsider their position after looking at the final pages you indicate regarding witnesses. This is quite a broad spectrum of administrators and teachers and the topics are consistent with the accusations listed by Mitchell.

The case against Brooks had considerable weight. A more apt criticism is that some of the board members, the Democrat Gazette, and some members of the public have turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to this problem, despite Mitchell's ill-advised manner in handling the situation.

Durango, you are simply witnessing what a good media flak campaign can do to sway public opinion. The fact remains that there was a noticeable amount of evidence and testimony showing Brooks guilty of the charges leveled against him. Brooks was disruptive to the system and several public agencies are guilty of covering this up to protect their own interests.

It seems the Democrat Gazette has reached the nadir in reporting standards both with its erroneous revision of the Central High crisis of 1957 and the current distortion of the LRSD school board vs Brooks problem; such is their editorial perfidy.

Jake, you are right. For one I know Sandy Becker and he is as scrupulous an accountant and human being as you will ever find. Jim Wohleb too is a dignified and competent leader in the community. If these two guys are concerned with Dr. Brook's behavior, that is good enough for me.

Dr. Brooks is being punished because he had the audacity to take on the LR school district's bureacracy and fire some of the dead weight. He had the nerve to crack down on some lazy incompetent teachers and tell them to do their jobs. Neanderthals like Mitchell and Dougherty can't stand progress.

The final page clearly shows that Dr. Brooks ruffled feathers in his quest for improvement. It's easy to find disgruntled employees who are willing to lie and distort things to slander a good man like Dr. Brooks.
While Dr. Brooks was no Saint and he's far from perfect, he moved the district in the right direction even with Ms. Mitchell stabbing him in the back at every turn.

Unfortunately for the LRSD, the answer to the Brooks' competency question will be answered by the quality of his next employer. My guess is that his opportunities are substantial and Katherine Mitchell's record will not attract much attention for additional board memberships.

My people and I wish that Severus would quit referring to stupid people as neanderthals. After all, we had a much larger cranial capacity than you tiny-headed little Homo sapiens types, and we were stronger to boot. We don't deserve your condemnation, Severus.

Besides, no group, not even troglodytes (talk about stupid cave dwellers), would claim Mitchell and Dougherty at this point.

Janus has summed it all up - if Sandy Becker is concerned then we should be concerned. Mr. Becker is one of the most honest men in the business. He has my utmost respect.

One more thing - eliminate Hattabaugh and Roberts positions (as well as Sadie Mitchell, Junious Babbs, and Linda Watson) and you would have more than enough money to pay off Brooks.

You would also save big bucks for every year after that. The district could survive just as well without those five as with them.

Slydog.....Rumor has it that Dr. Watson may be the replacement for Dr. Brooks.

Most interesting that Chip Welch decided to release all of this infomation to the Arkansas Times. I have FOIAed the man twice and have received a reply... and I quote " ...any and all electronic, printed and written communication between you (Welch) and Dr. Katherine P. Mitchell in regard to her testimony before Judge Eisele on May 7, 2007...." It goes on to say "The Freedom of Information Act does not require us to create documents where none exist. My review of the records shows that no such communication was had between myself and Dr. Mitchell".

If this is so, then why is it that the FOIA I requested from Chris Heller in regard to the same material was not honored since he is not an employee of the LRSD he is not obligated to turn over such commununications. Obviously we have another Nannie-boo-boo here (as Baker Kurrus put it)

Do you think that Chip is giving you everything or just what he wants to give you? Why is he still getting paid. According to the minutes from the May 6 special board Welch was hired as legal counsel for someone but no one was exactly sure who he would represent - the board as a whole, individual members??? At any rate, his contract (so to speak) was teminated at the special meeting on 5/24/07 before the regular board meeting. Why is the board still retaining him and who made the motion to do so and who voted? The answer is Mitchell who sent a letter to Welch saying that there was some question on if he was officially retained. So in her letter she told Welch he was retained as counsel and signed it. Seems to me that should have come from the board and not just Mitchell.

As for Sandy Becker and Wolub. I questioned wth AYP report and there was a glaring error which the bean counter actually caught sometime back. When I asked him why he didn't report that problem his reply was that "Williams obviously didn't catch it". Williams was in the PRE prior to DeJarnette. Why didn't he say anything when Dr. Mr. Daugherty was so adament about going from 12 to 24 schools on AYP? His reply "It was on the web site" which parroted DeJarnett's reply when questioned. This is know as a lack of due deligence. Becker - well, John Walker in response to a question on where he obtained the financial information for a stipend to the Director of Security, his reply was that he obtained it through an FOIA request. However, none exists at the LRSD and I don't think he can produce a copy either. Now who exactly would have unfettered access to that information - well, you guessed it, Mr. Sandy Becker! Mr. Becker, I believe you can expect an FOIA from someone in the near future!!!

If you want some more facts on the poll thing - 93% of the emails to all the board members except Mitchell and Daugherty (they don't use email accounts on LRSD) were in defense of Dr. Brooks and very angry with the board's actions. How do I know that? I FOIA'ed the board member PCs and downloaded all of the applicable emails with the LRSD technology director. As to the archives, of those emails which were not ordering stuff off the web or sending obscene jokes and (can you believe this) prayers and religious sayings (from the same person) to Mitchell and others, an overwhelming 97% of the emails were from parents was in direct opposition to the board and in favor of retaining Dr. Brooks. I have the "proof" and the facts. This is not perception but fact.

You can go to the web site lrsdparents.org. I don't call anyone names. I only have what I have found out and posted. The documents are not mine but come from the originating source. I realize that some will say that I am biased but then that's is all they do is say it. It's just that they can't prove it.

Welch's response to the FOIA by the way does break some of the FOIA rules regarding releasing personnel information. Even when he was told not to do so he still did it according to more than one school board member. So I don't have that much respect for the man. He is getting a lot of publicity at the tax-payers expense in my opinion.

ARK. BLOG: I received the material supplied to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette yesterday. As I understand it, Chip Welch gave the Brooks team the call on releasing the material, since it pertains to a personnel matter and since the law does not require release of information of such matters unless a final disciplinary decision has been reached. The Brooks team okayed the release. I got the stuff a day after the D-G got it.

"93% of the emails to all the board members except Mitchell and Daugherty (they don't use email accounts on LRSD) were in defense of Dr. Brooks and very angry with the board's actions. How do I know that? I FOIA'ed the board member PCs and downloaded all of the applicable emails with the LRSD technology director." - posted by LR School Parent

Wow, that's very revealing, but not surprising, LR School Parent. Of course, the pundits will say that all those ignored emails in defense of Dr. Brooks were "orchestrated." Totally unlike Dianne Curry's election to the school board, you understand.

Severus will say anything to poison the minds of those trying to understand this situation. It is obvious he doesn't know the ones listed or their standing within the school district. Severus is an angry outsider with little or no knowledge of the people he has denigrated with his baseless accusations.
It is sad that he has chosen to foist his ignorance, stupidity and meanness upon this discussion. I know of no other commentator on this issue who knows so little about it yet speaks so angrily and spitefully. He has made so many boneheaded and vindictive statements that fly in the face of reality that he has become a detriment to Brooks' cause.
It is ironic that Severus of all people would accuse someone of slander when many of his missives are filled with such tripe. His blind eye and deaf ear may be ignoring the evidence, but Severus' foul tongue has no trouble whatsoever in fabricating invidious dreck to waste our time.

It sounds like LR School parent is a little peeved that his "facts" are being contradicted. In all likelihood, there was an orchestrated e-mail campaign for Brooks. It was mentioned and encouraged. One only has to be familiar with which homes within the district are more apt to have computers plus internet service for the numbers being posted as they were to make sense.
Durango, you can just as easily say that all elections are orchestrated so your point is moot. Did someone orchestrate Rose & Brock into making those asinine and insulting comments which severely undercut their re-election efforts?
Methinks also that LR School Parent doth protest too much about the released items. Weren't outcries being heard that this evidence should not be suppressed?

I have worked and conducted business with several of the witnesses listed and the idea that so many people who rarely see each other have formed some conspiracy and concocted lies to oust Brooks from his job, this idea borders on fantasy and is plain preposterous.

It is strange that you want to give credence to an e-mail sample but are unwilling to believe a large number of people whose testimony stands to reveal the truth about the man you've blindly supported.

More and more, you are grasping at straws, in your futile attempt to keep the public deluded.

Dear Snake,

You have had some personal contact with me and I appreciated your conversation. It's too bad you can't convey that intelligence to this blog. It is apparent that you enjoy controversy and like to keep the pot stirred. I think you really do this because you get some kind of pleasure out of watching people fight each other. In essence, you are a voyeur. Too bad. You actually sound intelligent away from the virtual spotlight.

Let's put it this way - Dr. Brooks does talk a little too direct sometimes. However, when he does talk it is the truth. When Daugherty talks it shows arrogance (he said I was an idiot and told another person to "piss-off" while in a board meeting. Charles Armstrong called a parent in another board meeting a "mother f&*^er". He later apologized, however. Daugherty has never apologized to anyone for his actions. When Mitchell talks it shows contempt. Curry, unfortunately, answers the phone during board meetings and then espouses a Walker-ite comment. Hum! I wonder who that was that just text messaged her. Walker gives lip service in the back of the room to board members. How do you think that Welch was "hired" without a resume or competive bid within 15 minutes. His name really did come out of the air! Okay, some of this is fact and some of it was heresay. Snake, can you tell the difference? Probably not. To you it is all a lie. But that's the problem. Justice is blind and so are you.

Hi Parent,

Good to hear from you and, as usual, in your direct manner. What I did notice was that you completely ignored the Brooks issues. Everything you brought up concerns only the 4 board members who've voted against him.
I'm not here to debate the merits and demerits of each board member. If you wish to complain about them, do so to your hearts desire. It adds nothing to the questions and concerns regarding Brooks' actions and the testimony about such.
As to your fantasies about me, what can I say? My view comes from years of experience within the classroom and within the schools. Despite disagreements with board members over policy or personnel matters, I firmly believe ALL of them are trying to do their best for the district and that ALL of them are just as human as we are in their actions and responses.
Actually, I'm rather near-sighted, not blind. So, I have to look at things rather closely to see what's really there.
Anyway, crank out any label you like. It serves no purpose and fails to answer my arguments. The boys at the domino hall will find it funny that you've decided I was a voyeur. I'll have a hard time living that one down.
It's a shame you had to question my intelligence. That showed no class. It's OK to question my knowledge or to disapprove of my ignorance, but it is rather crass to call into account what little thinking skills I have left in my dotage.

As always, respectfully yours,

Jake

As I looked through both Welch's papers & Brooks' papers, I found it interesting to compare how Brooks responded to the list of charges. Some he disagreed with and some he simply dismissed. Curious.

Just a story. Maybe it has no significance to you, but it did to me at the time.

It was my last year working at this high school. I had only been there a short while. For years, ACTAAP scores had been abysmal, usually the lowest in the district. It would be hard to find any other high school in the district with such numbers.
A trio of dedicated math teachers teamed up and worked together to see if we could make a difference. In my last year, we doubled the number of proficient students from the year before and reduced the number of students classified as below basic.
Instead of getting praise from higher up, we were told that the superintendent was displeased with the results because our school had failed to bring those scores up to the No Child Left Behind standards.
So, this talk about how Brooks is out to weed out bad teachers and only criticizes those not doing their job, that's a load of crap in my book. I speak from personal experience.

I know this: in the districts I taught in, scores on the ACTAAP went up and the number of proficient students listed went up. When I left those schools, sadly, the scores and number proficient dropped back down. And frankly, I rarely thought I was that good of a teacher. I just had a system that I firmly believed in that a fellow colleague had showed me years ago. I worked hard to communicate ideas to the young people in my care.
Still, you cannot imagine the shock we three math teachers went through when we heard the criticism of our effort. We were not pleased and knew the super's judgment was in the wrong.

Anyway, I'm not a big fan of Brooks. However, I do find some credibility in those accusations about his leadership and his treatment of other employees.

He can debate the Ps and Qs of where he did or did not violate procedure but I think it is telling that he mostly is dismissive of charges involving personal conduct. Also, doesn't it make you wonder why Kurrus would want to reduce the contract terms, put Brooks on probation, and keep the termination process viable?

A Concerned Mom - If Watson is the next super I would strongly urge ALL parents (black, white, or any other color) to remove their children IMMEDIATELY. My blind and deaf dog has more sense than she will ever have. I hope that your source is incorrect - for everyone's sake.

LR School Parent - You spew way too much venom. Is it because your wife divorced you and your daughter refuses to speak to you? Whoops, did I say that?

I think we all need to settle down a little. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and just because we may not agree with one another does not give anyone the right to get personal!
I don't believe Dr. Brooks was perfect. I am sure he stepped on some toes just like Bill Cosby did some years ago. I am just afraid of what lies ahead. Linda Watson is being discussed by some as the new Super. I hear that there is discussion of replacing the Central Principal. Just rumors I know but they do scare me. The 4 board members had decided on Chip Welch before the meeting to hire an attorney (I was in the room and it was obvious). What else have they already decided on? I want to be able to trust them but it is getting harder!

Although I stand opposite to LR School Parent on this issue, I don't care for any attacks against him that stoop to personal insults or general nastiness. He has worked hard to defend Brooks and has collected enough evidence to make a lawyer consider him as a partner.
We both have been touchy on occasion about this issue, still I respect him for doing his best for his side. We have agreed to disagree. We both stand on the same ground when it comes to wishing the best for the children of this district although we differ on the direction to take over this ground.
Please don't insult him. He truly believes in his cause and should be respected for that. I firmly believe he does not have ulterior motives.

In accordance with this, the next time LR School Parent speaks out on this issue, I will remain quiet. He already knows my stance and I have faith that he will take it into account whenever he writes again.

Respectfully,

Jake

P.S. To keep up with my "voyeur" status, I will peek in a bit to see what transpires.

Does anyone have suggestions for who would be a good replacement for Dr. Brooks? For the district to move forward, I believe that it needs to be someone outside of the current system.

Slydog - there aren't any words to describe people like you but moron comes to mind along with weenee, sissy, nanny poopoo (I put these in your vernacular so you can understand them). Obviously you know me but you want to hide behind a virtual dog. In case any of you want to know, my name is Bob Powers. You can email me at concernedlrparent@swbell.net. Slydog - it's your turn.

The other issue is that you are obviously way behind the times and don't have all of the information in regard to my divorce and the current situation. The thing you have to remember is that it is your kind who want to stoop at the same level as dog doo in the LRSD thing that has made it as absurd as it is on both sides. I don't have an issue with Jake, we have done this before. At least he respects me for what I try to do and you don't. Slydog - put it out there and let us all know who your are. Or are you a yellow curr?

Gee, Bob, I'm glad to see that you won't stoop to such a low level.

I see that you can sling caca at others but get a tad bit upset when it comes flying back in your face.

I have read your blog and see that it is just a one-sided rag. You present only the facts that back up your point of view.

I'm glad to see that you have confirmed your divorce and that you are willing to put your personal business on the street.

It seems that you are challenging me to a duel. I accept your terms and will meet you in front of the LRSD administration building at high noon tomorrow. Since I have been challenged, I will choose the weapons. My choice? Dog turds. En garde!!
By the way, I think you mean "cur."

Hmmm.....

I don't have anything productive to add to this thread, except "I don't have anything productive to add to this thread."

And it has really been instructive to see the viewpoints of some of you who are "insiders" on these education issues. I've learned a lot.

Dog - that was the expected answer. You obviously use spell check I won't stoop to your level again - it's not worth the effort. I'm sure you are gloating in your glory over finding a misspelling. Whatever.

Just curious, however. Are you really that affraid to put your name out there? Do you really play with dog poop? I have nothing to hide do you? Take off that dog costume, you CUR and let us see your "face".

Another point, do you have any documentation to the contrary? If so, let's see it. I couldn't find it and belive me I tried. The only thing that Mitchell and them had was disgruntled employees and they weren't even going to let them testify. I tried to let what I could find determine how I was going to think. You are going by perception and heresay which obviously are as good as documentation in your circle.

Last point - get a life. You are constantly on these blogs. I bet you are big into WoW also and own an XBOX and playstation too. I honestly think it would be to your benefit to also become a Star Trek fan if you aren't one already. Compared to your present situation, I would consider that uplifting in your social needs. After all, collecting dog poop and thowing it at someone is not what I would call a social virtue.

Bob -

No, I didn't use spellcheck - I don't have to. That was just the most glaring of your misspellings. For your convenience, I have proofed your last post below.

Aren't you the pot calling the kettle black? For the past three weeks you have said some pretty nasty things. Go back and read some of the truly hateful comments you made to and about people in this thread alone.

Please drop the scatalogical fixation - it's getting old. I have no clue what a WoW is nor do I own an XBox, Play Station, or Wii. I will however, proudly admit to being a Star Trek (the original) fan. However, I don't see the point you are desperately trying to make.

By the way, I got my info about your nasty divorce from your wife during one of our many "pillow talk" conversations. Too bad you couldn't provide her with what she needed.

"Dog - that was the expected answer. You obviously use spell check I won't stoop to your level again - it's not worth the effort. I'm sure you are gloating in your glory over finding a misspelling. Whatever.

Just curious, however. Are you really that AFFRAID (afraid) to put your name out there? Do you really play with dog poop? I have nothing to hide (,) do you? Take off that dog costume, you CUR (,) and let us see your "face".

Another point, do you have any documentation to the contrary? If so, let's see it. I couldn't find it and BELIVE (believe) me I tried. The only thing that Mitchell and THEM (they) had was disgruntled employees and they weren't even going to let them testify. I tried to let what I could find determine how I was going to think. You are going by perception and HERESAY (hearsay - unless you mean heresy) which obviously are as good as documentation in your circle.

Last point - get a life. You are constantly on these blogs. I bet you are big into WoW also and own an XBOX and playstation (Play Station) too. I honestly think it would be to your benefit to also become a Star Trek fan if you aren't one already. Compared to your present situation, I would consider that uplifting in your social needs. After all, collecting dog poop and thowing it at someone is not what I would call a social virtue."

One final comment about your blog from a highly respected playwright:

It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
--Macbeth, Act V, Scene V

See you at noon.

LRSD Parent - Here are a few examples of your noble virtue and love for your fellow man:

"It's too bad you can't convey that intelligence to this blog. It is apparent that you enjoy controversy and like to keep the pot stirred. I think you really do this because you get some kind of pleasure out of watching people fight each other. In essence, you are a voyeur.Posted by: LR School Parent | May 31, 2007 10:54 PM"

"Slydog - there aren't any words to describe people like you but moron comes to mind along with weenee, sissy, nanny poopoo (I put these in your vernacular so you can understand them)."

"Do you really play with dog poop?"

!!This whole thread on ArkTimesBlog shows what a real sociopath we are dealing with: http://tinyurl.com/29aydv @@

"The thing is that Brooks has been damaged for about 3 years while Mitchell for 17, Daugherty since birth and the others."

"Brooks may need to simply pick up his marbles and leave. Some of the board members either lost them or didn't have them to begin with."

LRSP, you certainly are not guilty of casting the first stone, are you?

"To honestone:

As you said regarding following policy:

"Well, in my mind, that establishes a precadent(?). NOT THAT IT IS CORRECT, but it has been done before and no questions were asked. "

I see you have a spellchecker too.

You accuse me of being on this blog all the time. Check back over the past three months and see how your posts outnumber mine 5:1.

You insinuate that I am a computer geek. Let's see, what well-known LR psychopath has created a blog AND a website which is updated constantly in defense of Roy G. Brooks? That's right! It's YOU - the LRSD cuckold.

LRSD Parent - Here are a few examples of your noble virtue and love for your fellow man:

"It's too bad you can't convey that intelligence to this blog. It is apparent that you enjoy controversy and like to keep the pot stirred. I think you really do this because you get some kind of pleasure out of watching people fight each other. In essence, you are a voyeur.Posted by: LR School Parent | May 31, 2007 10:54 PM"

"Slydog - there aren't any words to describe people like you but moron comes to mind along with weenee, sissy, nanny poopoo (I put these in your vernacular so you can understand them)."

"Do you really play with dog poop?"

!!This whole thread on ArkTimesBlog shows what a real sociopath we are dealing with: http://tinyurl.com/29aydv @@

"The thing is that Brooks has been damaged for about 3 years while Mitchell for 17, Daugherty since birth and the others."

"Brooks may need to simply pick up his marbles and leave. Some of the board members either lost them or didn't have them to begin with."

LRSP, you certainly are not guilty of casting the first stone, are you?

"To honestone:

As you said regarding following policy:

"Well, in my mind, that establishes a precadent(?). NOT THAT IT IS CORRECT, but it has been done before and no questions were asked. "

I see you have a spellchecker too.

You accuse me of being on this blog all the time. Check back over the past three months and see how your posts outnumber mine 5:1.

You insinuate that I am a computer geek. Let's see, what well-known LR psychopath has created a blog AND a website which is updated constantly in defense of Roy G. Brooks? That's right! It's YOU - the LRSD cuckold.

Slydog/Sladyen,

You, Sir, are no gentleman. Either you lacked a father or your father lacked the ability to positively influence your rearing. Your generally sophomoric posts have degenerated and become offensive.

OK,
Like Neanderthal, I am tired of MY name being used in this war between two. Curious this, and Curious that. LRSP and slydog, please post facts to support your opinions.
Jake, thank you for realizing early on that the continuance of this behavior would lack benefit to anyone on either side.
Now, add OAZ to the mix (sometimes folks need to keep their personal lives out of public discussion).
So, as usual I have some questions.
Best guess - how much would it cost LRSD to pursue firing Brooks?
How many jobs in the reorganizations have since been replaced under new titles?
How many "expert" teachers" were lost in the reorganization? How, exactly, has the presence of Brooks as the super enhanced the efficiency of teachers in the classroom? Who benefits from the continued employment of Brooks? Why is it wrong for outside influences to work to elect a candidate? Why should teachers be denied the personal use of personal home computers to pose opposition OR support of LRSD? Is it OK for an employer to require a teacher who is willing to run for an elected position to first register with the Superintendent? And, then, await approval? Why have LRSP and slydog chosen this site to exchange personal information that I don't give a rip about? Isn't that what IMs are for? Is there any reason I shouldn't group both of you with the hooligans I used to teach? Was it OK for them to defile school property, attack each other verbally and physically, scream profanities and innuendos at teachers and administrators? LRSP, numbers lie where they lay, don't they? slydog, opposition without stated facts is merely opposition without facts, isn't it? Please, y'all, don't use my name so much as I prefer to take responsibility for my comments. Thank you, Curious
PS: Y'all need a Thesaurus!

Just got home from Central's graduation. My, aren't y'all being nasty? Please stop -- I use these blogs as a mini-Civics lesson for my children, and the personal comments on this blog tonight were a little more than I deem necessary for a balanced education.

156 of the graduating seniors accepted a school record $6 million-plus in scholarships. As they read the list of students/scholarships/schools, those who stood to be recognized seemed to be racially balanced (which seems to be an issue for some, so I'll mention that). The speakers (all students, most chosen by their peers) were eloquent, engaging, charming and, once again, racially balanced. Folks should look at these happy, excited kids as they start their life journeys and see what public schools are all about.

Although I could sit on either side of the Roy Brooks fence (depending on my mood and that day's news), a campaign to remove Nancy Rousseau will show what a pack of angry mamas and papas will do.

lrmom,
Congrats on the Graduation! Why would anyone want to remove Nancy Rousseau? I have known her for more years than I care to remember. Nancy was a phenomenal classroom teacher and from what I hear, a magnificent Principal. Please enlighten me. I don't get it!

I have tried to post only what I found and it is all documented on LRSDParents.org. There is nothing there that I wrote in the way of proof, only what was presented from news accounts, court documents, and original sources. I even posted a FAX from Walker! I tried to give both sides, but unless someone can post otherwise or found some secret place where such evidence exits, there isn't much. Welch's dump is almost exclusively anecdotal.

I am truly sorry for the way I acted, I am not normally like that but I do not like to be attacked personally. Dog does not have a clue about the circumstances or the fact that I have a good relationship with my exwife and the kids. As I said, it is this mentality that pervades the LRSD board situation and it has got to stop. My tyrade with the dog is a good example. I am not as smart as the dog or at least that is the way he wants to portray it. No matter. However, if he has evidence to counter mine, he needs to post it.

My parting shot, however, is that we still don't know who he is. He may be smart, but he is still a coward. Post your name and email, dog.

Wow.

I forgot to check back in on this thread last night.

Kinda glad about that.

Curious,
The comment about Central's principal was made by tiredofbs on June 1 at 10:23 am. I was reading all of these blogs at the same time and didn't realize how far back in the posting it was. I've heard this before and hope it's just a pointless rumor, but lately one never knows...

OandZ -
1. Who is Slayden?
2. Since when did you take the high road in posting?
3. Sophomoric? My previous posts have contained mounains of data but I will admit a few have been in jest.
4. Before you call someone a bastard, you might want to check with your mother to find out who your father is.
5. I hope you and LRSP have a happy life together.

sillypuppy has fallen to troll status. Treat it as such (i.e., don't engage it) and it will go away.

LR Central is, demonstrably and happily, not "broken;" I would join with others in any attempt to stop *anyone* from "fixing" my alma mater. That is so even though my child attends another high school in the district that is building its own record of success.

But as a concerned black parent, my deepest hope as to LRCHS is that those who oppose pointless or counterproductive change will (1) take the time to build a multi-racial coalition; and (2) please, please not trot out the seemingly arrogant and provactive battle cry that (translated in the historical and cultural light of many black patrons) sounds like "We will run to private schools and leave you stuck with your kind in the hellish misery of an all-black district."

We have common ground if we will but seize it.

I know they are just rumors but word on the street is that Walker and the 4 board members want Rousseau gone by the 50th anniversary-that's why so many Central parents came to the LR Mothers meeting last week. Also, I am curious to now why Walker is so opposed to Patricia Boykin? I hear she's pretty good (and she is African American). What's up with that? This is not a race issue in my opinion. I tutor a white child twice a week whose family is in serious financial peril. Obviously, we should be concerned about all kids in the district. My fear is that Mitchell and Walker are more in it for getting positions for people they know than having the best possible people in the jobs. Do you think we can find a new Super from outside this pond who will want the job in light of how we have treated other Supers?

Jake,

Could you amplify on this?

"Instead of getting praise from higher up, we were told that the superintendent was displeased with the results because our school had failed to bring those scores up to the No Child Left Behind standards."

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Was the displeasure because you hadn't done enough? Or because you showed someone else up? Or something else altogether?

I don't doubt your story, by the way. I just don't get this point.

Thanks for the question, John. Let me clear off the easy one first: we had not shown anyone else up. Your first question ("....hadn't done enough?") is closer to the mark.

It's not easy to explain NCLB standards and how they are to be applied. However, I will try to explain it as best as I was told at the time. Forgive me if I get the numbers wrong but I'm just trying to paint an approximate picture as to how judgments were made according to NCLB.

Let's say that in your first year of testing that 9% of the students score in the proficient range in Algebra. A schedule is then generated that shows you incrementally reaching the goal of 100% proficiency (ALL students will be proficient) in 7 years or thereabouts. So, according to the schedule, you would be expected to reach the following:
1st year: 22%
2nd year: 35%
3rd year: 48%
4th year: 61%
5th year: 74%
6th year: 87%
7th year: 100%

Here's the problem. At the end of the 1st year, you only reach 15%. Does your goal change for the following year? No. You still need to reach 35% for the 2nd year. So, say you had some teacher changes and the 2nd year's students had a poorer foundation than the previous year's students: you just manage to go up to 17% at the end of the 2nd year. People are unhappy with the principal and it has to be the teachers' fault.
No one takes into account teh realities of the school system. You have to work with what the previous grades send you.If those grades don't show improvement, you're screwed.
So, we reach the stage I talked about. It's the 3rd year and the teachers have incorporated the best plan they can come up with. Test results show 33% proficiency. You doubled the previous year. Sounds great, huh?
Ooops! The NCLB standard says you are to be at 48%. You are still way behind and will get further behind.
Now, understand this: when I arrived, our high school was worse than this scenario in its starting point. There were a few good students but by and large the majority came into the math course with below basic skills. I even had some students still counting on their fingers.
NCLB is unrealistic. NCLB mandated change but provided no funds for the change. NCLB made a few accountable for the many. NCLB, however noble in thought, is impossible in action.
When a superintendent becomes a petty tyrant because of NCLB numbers and fails to recognize a significant measure of accomplishment, then you have good reason to be angry with him.

So, John.....remember the numbers I gave were not actually ours but simply made it easier for me to explain the system. Consider that according to NCLB standards, most schools should have between 80-90% proficiency by now. Do yourself a favor and see what the state averages are. Guess how many states have reached this aggregate total with all their schools.

You won't even have to count on your fingers.....

Jake...Thanks for your explaination of NCLB.

The concept is great but the hoops and expectations are not sensible or realistic. I guess that is why Districts from across the country are trying to make changes in this legislation or starting to rebel.

For the LRSD, I hope they find someone outside of the system to lead us next year. Parent need to stay informed and involved. The new administration needs to focus on fixing the problems which Dr. Mitchell felt fell short during Dr. Brooks' tenure(I'm still unclear on the school related issues she had with Dr. Brooks).......But I think we will all agree......Central is not one of those problems and does NOT need to be fixed.

A safe weekend to all.

Jake, I agree with you on the NCLB. I too think the NCLB is unrealistic. No onlly that but there seems to be a disconnect between the ADE and NORMES as can be seen by some disagreements in the figures posted by NORMES. The problem is that the NCLB is too subjective. Also, to make scores look better, there is talk of some schools teaching to the test which doesn'tm make the student think in abstract terms. They are teaching memorization.

There are other issues such as some states raising concerns regarding the 14th Amendment - State Rights. I do not like the idea of the Federal Government getting into our education and dictating what we should do.

As regards Nancy R., the only negative I heard about her was that she micromanages. She does get results and is very hands on. Many will tell you that she is very intense or driven. Because she is so detail driven, she has similar expectations from all her employees. Still, she pushes for excellence in her own way and has gotten results.
Ignoring the issue of NCLB standards for a moment, there still remains a problem with test scores in the public schools, especially in the lower socio-economic schools and also with African-American students. Unless the community members, the parents, and the children exhibit more commitment to education, no plan has a feasible chance of succeeding.
Nothing has frustrated teachers more than the idea of social promotion, that children are not to be failed if at all possible. Study after study showed that a child's "self-esteem" would be hurt by failing them. We had to laugh through the tears at this notion because we saw so many students with "self-esteem" who couldn't even handle the basic number tables or simple procedures or basic thinking or knew how to be organized. And I'm not even going to talk about the abysmal reading skills.
One speaker said it for all of us one year: "Why don't we make the student accountable? Why don't we make the parents accountable? Why just the schools and teachers and not the parents and the children?"

For the schools to succeed, everyone has to be involved......communities, and parents must do their part.

I hope the new school administration, the school board, the CTA, and parents put forth efforts to bridge the rift that exist in the community. We need each other.......we need the diverse cultures, and we need the student volume for financial reasons.

Mom,
The Feds are the Feds. Apples are not apples and oranges are not oranges. If you have some questions about NCLB and its implementation in LRSD, please contact Dr. Ken James at the Arkansas Department of Education.
Jake, here is my take on NCLB. Fed funding is based on the results of testing of apples and oranges. The only common factor is the teacher. So, the teacher must be bad because Class A did not perform to the level of Class O.
Jake, that was a more than eloquent explanation of NCLB. Many states are now beginning to forego the funding. I wonder if that wasn't the purpose with which to begin the dismantling of the public education system.
Honestly, Mom, the picture is much larger than LRAR.
Why am I supporting liberal questions when I am a true conservative???

Nothing has frustrated teachers more than the idea of social promotion, that children are not to be failed if at all possible.

Jake, NOTHING frustrates teachers more than disrespectful students and their parent being returned to a classroom with no consequences. What the hell are we teaching these kids about being an employee, a law-abiding adult? Is LRSD doing them a favor by "keeping them in school"? High school and Middle school are too late. If we are to be "parents" to these kids, then the training MUST start in elementary school, and quit being minimized by the adults in charge from PreK to 5th. The problems at middle and high school would be lessened and more learning would take place so the classes you receive might be more apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

Excellent points, Curious. I still feel that the lack of a proper foundation just barely beats out bad behavior as the cause for failure. The two in combination were an almost absolute guarantee of failure.

You're right about the apples, oranges, pears, kiwis, and whatever fruit analogy you want to make. Plus you forgot to mention that this fruit salad gets continually replaced and modified as the year goes along.

Pre-K to 5th are the key areas to make significant change that will affect the system positively. We need a new superintendent who is aware of this and intends to do something about it. As I've stated before, I believe a young, vibrant assistant superintendent from a school district which has successfully solved such problems would be the best person for the job. Virginia, North Carolina and Kentucky are just a few of the states which are leading the way in educational reform and improvement.
I would strongly recommend that the applicants produce letters from their school board and superintendent, from the local teacher association, and from community leaders. I further believe that our current board, delegates from the teacher association and admin office, plus a contingent of LR community members work together in interviewing and meeting with all applicants.

You know, it might even be nice if they came to a blog like this and let the public send in their questions & comments. Just consider how much information we've shared just on the AT Blog.

Jake,
We are in agreement. Perhaps LRSD would support a blog site for the applicants? The more input the School Board has to consider, the fewer mistakes will be made (I hope). How do you choose a Super on one interview anyway?

Jake and Curious --

I think you've come up with excellent ideas for a strong foundation. Thanks. I hope the right people are listening, or reading.