Bob and Bill – who is fighting for whom (and who is “fighting hard enough”)

In a previous post, fellow committee member Bob Petit and myself are having a discussion.  Pasted below is edited to relevant material.  Full text at link provided.  Just thought I would post it up front so people don’t miss it.   The discussion started on graduation rates…

 

The new calculations eliminate the “unknown” category where many students were previously placed.

I was most surprised by the RYSE change. We went from a 100% graduation rate down to 47%. Probably indicates that students are in RYSE a lot longer than the normal time (at an average of $67k per).

There are two kinds of kids in RYSE – children with very high needs and students placed there because they violated a school policy and exceeded the time we could suspend them from school. We can presume that the ones used in graduation calculations are predominantly the former – the 8% proficiency in math is probably another indicator of that.

This speaks very strongly to me that we should be putting more emphasis on evaluations and then determine what are the appropriate skills to teach. Sometimes life skills are enough. Why keep someone in a public school for up to the age of 21 just because we haven’t yet gotten them to an age appropriate academic level. Does someone who will be dependant on a family member for their entire life really need to spend 8 years learning fractions? At what point does a school take over too much of what a family should do?

Comment by Bill Felkner — July 17, 2008 @ 9:23 pm |

Bill not sure there is anything that could be done about someone being in school until they are 21. If they are there because they need to education for special needs or not, what can be said? How would you suggest that be handled? Can’t just throw them out.

Comment by Bob Petit — July 18, 2008 @ 8:54 am |

 What I was asking Bill is what can be done? Legally can you do anything to them. I would be willing to say that with “NCLB” you don’t have a choice in the matter. So it is not my world that makes these laws or mandates but it is mine and yours that live by them. 85 instead of 21 foolishness but I expect no less. I hope you are thankful that all of your children are healthy and don’t need any special help.

Comment by Bob Petit — July 18, 2008 @ 1:11 pm

 RYSE has spent resources finding a parent a job – thats not mandated, it is a decision of the school. What could we do? We could say that that will not be tolerated. But what happened when we tried to even get a competitive bid for the RYSE services? A no-bid contract was awarded because our service provider has a monopoly on “wrap-around” services that Kathy Perry has dictated as necessary.

ALso, did you notice that we are paying Autism of RI to consult to RYSE? Why are we doing that when we pay Psy Centers 3/4 of a million dollars a year for them to handle it?

The answer to “what can we do” is simple. Don’t do it anymore. Open it up to competitive bidding and hold them accountable. But for that to happen we would have to have control of RYSE- which the no-bid contact issue showed us we don’t.

Everyone knows what to do, its up to the school committee to do it. Just like the employee contracts. We tried to change some things last year but couldn’t even get an analysis from Chariho because (according to Ricci) Brian Stanley wouldn’t do it because of a conflict of interest. Then we voted to stop the contracts but RIcci forgot to tell us that they would be rolled over anyway. On Tuesday we had an opportunity to eliminate that roll over in a new contract but now we use the excuse “let the sub committee do it”

Excuse after excuse. I’ll make the call right now – next year’s teacher contract will end the same as they are today – raises will be much more than the private market and insurance co-pays will be much less than the private market. I hope I’m wrong but I’ve seen nothing from the committee to suggest it will change. Just a lot of talk.

Comment by Bill Felkner — July 18, 2008 @ 11:40 pm |

 Bill what does that have to do with teaching students until 21 years old? That was what you were talking about. Say we turned around and sent them back out, would or could they still attend until 21, this is a question and knowing your wife is involved somewhat; I think in special ed I thought you would know. Is it mandated to teach them?

As for helping families find a job, I don’t know what to say about that. What did they do to help the family find a job? I have helped people find jobs, did they spend money to help this family? I know you have commented on this before but I didn’t see, and I may have missed, where they spent any money doing this. Was it a matter of just saying, “I know someone looking for workes and can put a word in for you if you want to work”? This happens all the time.

As for the roll over in contracts, we are looking into this. I mentioned it first and want to do it. The reason we asked to wait is because we are looking into all aspects of the contracts. Speaking of contracts, you were the memeber voted in by the body to handle the last contracts in a sub committee, you had a chance to change a lot more and didn’t do it, don’t make it sound like it is everyone else Bill. You were right in that room just like the rest of us. One thing about you is that you bring things up but you never follow through or fight hard enough for it. You come out here post things and dissapear same as in the meetings. If you read the contracts that were in you packet you would have known that the contracts would have rolled over. I was baffled that night that it was a motion to table and voted to approve. I voted not to table it because I read my packet and I knew if it was tabled it was a mute point.

…

As for the school committee educating ourselves, we are all ready doing that.

Comment by bob petit — July 19, 2008 @ 8:28 am |

Bob,
Firstly, the “21″ point is that at some point there needs to be a limit to what society is responsible for – whether it is for a child with behavior issues or developmental disabilities. After upwards of 16 years for a K-12 education, a child can leave with nothing more than basic living skills. Those are certainly important, but why is society asked to pay for even 7 years (RYSE high school) at $67k per year to teach someone skills they could learn at home (only 8% can score a 62.5% or better on a math test). We made a social contract to provide certain services and those services are being redefined and expanded by the service provider (Chariho). The more society supplies, the less that family, faith and friends will. No, this is not the politically correct answer.

And yes we pay for it – that was the no-bid contract for wrap-around services you approved. 

Why don’t you give your checkbook to the local mechanic and tell him he is in charge of deciding what services will be performed on your car. Better yet, give him your checkbook but tell him you will pay for whatever services he deems worthy for my car. Oil changes will be down to every 500 miles.

And yes, Kat is involved in sped. As a matter of fact, she was paid to consult to RYSE when it was developed. Apparently, Kathy Perry didn’t like her advice. Didn’t you notice the incredibly rude attitude given to Kat by Perry at the 1st and last time she attended the graduation?

We have passed no-bid contracts, we have ignored parents who complain, we have triple legal bills fighting parents who wanted to remove their kids (which the board voted to block my access to). This is what you have done on the school committee to help RYSE not help the kids. If making RYSE better was the intention and not protecting the revenue source, why didn’t the committee (YOU INCLUDED) allow Elaine Morgan to speak when she, as a parent of a RYSE student, tried to tell us about being forced into a bad program – a program that lead to the child’s breakdown? Don’t you think it is responsible to listen to a disgruntled customer?

Secondly, don’t talk about things you apparently have no knowledge of. You were not at all of the contract negotiation meetings. Do you know how many times I was outvoted on the contact sub committee? How I was responsible for developing the merit pay proposal and asked to present it (which is fine, only noting the lack of effort from others)? How many times Andy P tried to scare us with talks of strike?

I don’t remember you complaining that Andy P is allowed to negotiate for the committee but he once negotiated for Chariho teachers. Similarly, no one objected when the former treasurer DiFabio also negotiated for the committee even though he used to negotiate for the teachers.

Speaking of which – he also got $15k worth of health insurance as payment for a $10k job per the current model, plus his wife got a $5k buyback because he was given this increase). More examples of corruption at Chariho that you continue to protect. Why haven’t you ever done anything about that? Or are you just going to criticize my efforts?  Oddly, your cousin didn’t put DiFabio on the payroll.

How many times was it that I couldn’t even get something proposed? How many times Andy P would make his little speech to the NEA and leak one of our intents (ask Deb Jennings – why did Andy P leave teh chair seat?????? You were at that meeting – I don’t remember you doing anything about it).

Wake up or stop bull s***** everyone here. I was 1 vote of 3 on the sub committee and I tried to do several more things that didn’t come out but was blocked because we didn’t pre-notify them of our intentions. That’s why I told the lawyer to include a disclaimer of intent. You were at the end meetings when we were blocked from introducing things. Why didn’t you tell the lawyer to include that disclaimer? Or, again, are you just waiting to criticize my efforts? You should direct your energies at the system that is failing our children, not trying to find fault in what I’m doing. Unless you have a different agenda.

To suggest my initiatives failed because I don’t “follow through” or “fight hard enough” is absurd. Not even worthy of response.

And if you knew the roll-over was going to hurt us, why didn’t you say something rather than remain silent and let the contracts continue with the special deals? Protecting someone?

As for keeping out people with conflicts of interest – We have so many people on the committee related to public employees we wouldn’t have a quorum if we eliminated them all. Me, Bill D, Andy P, Andy M, Bob P, and Terry S. Holly E is in teacher training. Those I know about – there could be more. Andy P still involves himself in the meetings but Bill says he doesn’t (but you will see when I post the minutes of the sub committee that he attended and seemed to be given more latitude than anyone from the public ever did at a regular meeting).

The answer is holding them accountable – not making rules that are designed to eliminate corruption. I really don’t care who is related to whom if I’m not forced to do business with them. Let them be corrupt. If they are we should be able to leave (just like every other business) not held hostage by a monopoly.

Bob, for 7 months the NEA wasted tax payer money with that complaint at the LRB. I tried several times to get access to the information but the school committee (you included) would not allow me to speak with the attorney even though my name was the only one listed on the complaint. Not only did you never attempt to help me get access to the information (not once did you even support my request) but your reaction was to make a motion giving Ricci full access to the lawyer at his whim. According to you, Ricci may speak with the lawyers about a complaint filed against my actions but I may not. Why? Why do you protect a monopoly?

Comment by Bill Felkner — July 19, 2008 @ 10:33 am |

NOTE:  The contract strategy sub committee is Bob Petit, Holly Eaves and Andy McQuade.  Bill Day and Barry Ricci also attended the meeting.