Heather Bennett                                                                                    Kristi Swett

TEXT OF LETTER TO BOARD PRESIDENT:

31 January 2015

Delivered Via USPS & District Interoffice Mail
Ms. Heather Bennett, Board President
℅ Salt Lake City Board of Education
440 East 100 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Re:SMEAR CAMPAIGN [1] in the name of the SALT LAKE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION

 Dear President Bennett,

As you are now aware, I had several teachers forward me a letter [2] you wrote to the current Salt Lake Teacher Association (SLTA) President which was distributed to SLTA members on Friday (01/30/15).

In our phone conversation of Friday (01/30/15) afternoon you verbally apologized for writing and sending the letter to the SLTA president, yet you refused to send a written apology and retract statements about me, that you now acknowledge were false.

In the absence of a written retraction from you, I feel compelled to make some attempts to correct the misinformation you are peddling, as your Board letter received a wide distribution.

I must confess, in light of our conversation of last Wednesday night and subsequent email
exchanges [3] about “a hope for a better future”, I am disheartened that you continue to launch written, public attacks against me, this is the second one this week.

IN THE NAME OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION                                  Moreover, I am troubled by the fact that these types of letters,[4] are sent out under the auspices of the Board; giving recipients the false impression that their contents are a reflection of the will of the Board.

The reality being, that the Board had no knowledge that letters attacking one of their own, was being written and distributed in their name. Equally execrable; copies of these letters were never sent to me, although I was portrayed by you as the villain in both of them. How do you justify sending vitriolic correspondence in the name of the Board without that body’s approval? [5]

In last weeks letter to the Planning Commission you stated “As I am sure you know, the powers of the board are vested in the board as a whole, and not in the individual board members.” I would respectfully point out that the same is true for you, when it comes to yielding “the powers of the Board”.

I do believe you have abused the powers of the Board by using its name as a weapon against one particular member of that body, your predecessor was no different. If you want to call out a fellow Board member, then do so under your name. If you want to do it in the name of the Board, then first, obtain their approval.

I would ask that the use of correspondence utilizing the letterhead of the Board of Education be placed on the agenda of our next Board meeting, so that we can decide if we are going to enforce our current policy, [6] or allow you to continue on your present course.

ETHICAL STANDARDS
When viewing the Board letter to the SLTA president, through the lens of the Ethical Standards, [7] I see nothing that “represents the board with dignity and integrity”. [8] Can you honestly tell me that this Board letter is “treat[ing] [a] fellow board member…with respect and consideration, through civil discourse, exhibiting both honesty and decorum…”? [9]

HONESTY
As discussed in our Friday phone conversation, the words attributed to me from the report[10] that you quoted in the Board letter, did not come out of my mouth. I don’t even know what “negotiated bumping rights” are, nor would I ever use the term “poor side of town”.

I was shocked to hear you say, you were aware that Principal Ken Grover [11] and Principal Rachel Nance [12] (who were also quoted in the report) were misquoted. The shock comes in that I was not extended the opportunity to confirm that the words attributed to me, were my own.

If three people from the Salt Lake City School District were quoted in the report and you knew that two of them were misquoted, why would you think the third one was accurately quoted? This goes back to what I said at the beginning of this letter, had you sought Board approval, to write a letter in their name, about one of their own; clarity would have replaced assumptions.

Furthermore, I know that you are aware that I never said that “60 to 70% of our teachers are ineffective”, it’s a matter of public record that I did not use the phrase “ineffective teachers” as a verb and I was instead asking a question about data. [13]

Truly, the “deliberate twisting” of the facts surrounding my use of the word “ineffective teachers” in February 2013, is a product of the “shoulder to shoulder” working together between you, your predecessor, the superintendent and the current SLTA President. [14]

Moreover, I find it ironic that you would attempt to demonize me in the eyes of the teachers. My record speaks for itself. You will recall that while serving my first year on the Board, I made a motion in the June 2013, meeting, to amend the budget, in order to provide our teachers with a 3 % COLA increase. I stated that I wanted to “rectify the disparity” of giving the Superintendent a 6% increase while giving our teachers a meager 1%.[15]

That “atmosphere of trust and collaboration” between the administration and SLTA leadership held strong and the teachers received a 1% in the shadow of the superintendent’s 6% that year. I renewed that same request in 2014. [16]

I trust this letter will serve to remedy the false witness you brought against me, under the guise of the Salt Lake City Board of Education.

Shalom,

J. Michael Clára

Board Member, District 2

Enclosures (Not all documentation referenced in the footnotes is included)

cc: Salt Lake City Board of Education
Salt Lake Teacher’s Association Leadership
Salt Lake Teacher’s Association Representatives

P.S. I want to apologize for any problems I might have caused in your home on Friday. After your husband interrupted our phone conversation, I gathered you did not have his permission to be on the phone as there are certain prescribed times for phone usage in your home, I can and want to respect those parameters.  Before your husband hung up the phone on me, I tried to apologize and explain that you called me, not the other way around. For future reference, there are no such restrictions in my home, you are free to call me at anytime,

8 May 2014

DELIVERED VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Dr. Laurie Lacy, Title I Director
Salt Lake City School District
440 East 100 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Re: Title I Complaint: Parental Involvement

 Dr. Lacy,

I am forwarding a letter (with eleven pages of attachment) that I presented to the Salt Lake City Board of Education on May 6, 2014. The letter has the same date as the board meeting and is styled:

Flawed Principal Selection Process

I advised the school board that I believe that the Superintendent violated the district’s own procedure when he recently hired four new principals to serve in Title I Schools for the coming 2014-2015 school year.

As indicated in the accompanying letter, if a principal vacancy is not filled by the lateral transfer of another principal, then a “school selection team” compromising of teachers, parents, and school staff is to be convened in order to “screen and interview candidates”.

I received reports from teachers and parents of these schools, advising me that this process was not followed in the hiring of their new principal. I am also being told that one of the principals does not have an ESL endorsement, yet will be serving a school that has close to 90% students of color, many of those students have English as a second language. Can you please forward me the qualifications and credentials of those that appeared on the May 6, 2014, Human Resources Report?

The superintendent and associate superintendent advised the school board that because these Title I schools were participating in the University of Virginia Turnaround Program, therefore the district was not required to follow the current hiring process for principal vacancies. Two weeks prior to the school board meeting, the superintendent ignored my request for an explanation and then offered no reasonable explanation during the school board meeting as to why excluding parents and teachers from the interview /hiring process was necessary.

I pointed out, that having this program in the school was a violation of the Written Agreement (contract) that the school board entered into with the Salt Lake Teachers Association. As indicated in the accompanying letter, before a program is placed in a school, it should meet the approval of the school board or the faculty of the school. This program has not been presented to either group.

The superintendency made a feeble attempt to convince everyone that this was not a “program” and therefore did not need faculty approval. Once the video of the meeting was published the following day, I received several calls from teachers advising me that the superintendency was being less than honest in claiming this is not a “program”. One teacher sent me an article titled:

U. Va’s School Turnaround Program Helps Salt Lake City School District Make the Grade
UVA Today –September 30, 2013

There are numerous other instances where this is identified for what it is, a “program”. To that end, I am filing a formal complaint with your office because I believe the Salt Lake City School District, is out of compliance with the tenants of Title I as they pertain to parental involvement. As you are aware Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, is a federal program designed to provide additional assistance to academically struggling students in high-poverty areas.

This program contains section 1118 called “Parental Involvement”, which requires that parents be involved in the formation of plans that will be at their children’s school as provided in section 1112 it being titled “Local Educational Agency Plans”. I am including three pages that I pulled from the Title I Monitoring Handbook of the Utah State Office Of Education. It clearly states that any program coming into the school MUST include the involvement of the parents. It is clear to me, parents and teachers that the tenants of Title I were not followed when the University of Virginia Turnaround Program was brought into our schools.

I submit, that the practice of excluding the parents from helping to choose the school principal because of a program they did not agree to, is tantamount to subverting Title I’s effort to provide supplemental services to our most vulnerable student population. In essence the District is sanctioning and perpetuating the existing inequities with Federal dollars.

Shalom,

J. Michael Clára
Board Member

cc: The Honorable Luz Roblez, Utah State Senator
The Honorable Angela Romero, Utah House of Representatives
Mr. Richard Gomez, Director of Equity, Utah State Office of Education
Mr. Karl Wilson, State Director of Title I Programs –Utah State Office of           Education
Ms. Sandra Sanchez, Attorney – U.S. Department of Education, Office for         Civil Rights

Enclosures

PDF Link to Letter

Blog Entry: Flawed Principal Selection Process for Westside Schools

At last night’s school board meeting, the board voted to approve the attached list of new principals. Sadly the bureaucracy bypassed parental, teacher and local staff input as per policy. Chalk this up as another “The Central Office Knows What is Best”. 

This is the text of a letter I submitted to the board. Supporting documentation appears in the PDF version of the letter:

6 May 2014

HAND DELIVERED
Kristi Swett, President
Salt Lake City School Board
2256 South King Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84109

Re: Flawed Principal Selection Process

 Dear President Swett,

I am voting against the May 6, 2014, Human Resources Board Report,[1] because I believe that the names recommended as new principals were selected in violation of the school district’s tenants of shared governance.[2] Any attempts on my part, over the past three weeks, to obtain clarification from the superintendent have been met with silence.[3]

Furthermore, I believe that the process utilized to bring these names forth, omitted school board approval[4] and was in violation of SLASA Written Understanding[5] and SLTA Written Agreement[6].

Moreover, the current selection process was conducted in a manner that robbed the parents, teachers, school staff and local community members of their critical role in helping to choose the most effective leader[7] for their neighborhood school.[8]

I would betray the trust my neighbors placed in me, if I become complicit in excluding our local governing councils from what should have been a collaborative process. I cannot in good conscious offer an affirmative vote for this report.

Shalom,

J. Michael Clára
Board Member

Enclosures (7)

cc: Proceedings of the May 6, 2014, Board of Education Meeting

Link: PDF Version with attachments

Host: Rod Arquet

SLTA President Susan McFarland was on the Rod Arquet show on 03/14/13 talking about the OCR complaint that Michael Clara filed.

SusanMRodAShow031413

Link to the Rod Arquet Show

Picture taken on 02/25/13 -SLTA Leadership with Michael Clara

TEXT OF EMAIL TO SLTA LEADERSHIP:

Dear Ms. Tzourtzouklis, Ms. McFarland & Mr. Harman,

I have received several calls from teachers who cited an email they received referencing your joint opposition to my “idea of mandatory teacher transfers in our schools”. I am so sorry that following our meeting on Monday, I left you with the impression that I supported that concept because I do not. (See: Salt Lake Teacher’s Association Issues a Stinging Rebuke on Michael Clara)

I also want to clarify that I have never stated: “69% of the teachers on the westside are ineffective”. 

My use of the adjective, “ineffective” and using it in conjunction with the noun, “teacher” has always been within the context of the “student growth model” which was established in 2011 (see USOE Effectiveness PP).

In our current educational setting, measuring teacher “effectiveness” using a ‘student growth model’ is the latest measurement being used. While placing the word “teacher” and “ineffectiveness” together, is upsetting to some; it should be noted that I did not invent the term and I should not be pelted for its use in a school board study session. (See Board Meeting: 02/19/2013 (Audio) 

This is however, one of the measurements that I consider when deliberating on policy or the allocation of resources for our district. I recognize that the data from the ‘student growth model is preliminary, as I stated in the Tribune article:

“Clara said in an interview the data he cites on “ineffective” teachers in west-side schools are preliminary and notes he was not allowed access to all the district’s information. (Do West-Side Salt Lake Kids Have Too Many Ineffective Teachers? – Tribune 02/26/13).

It appears that the headline editor for the Tribune took the term ‘ineffective teachers’ that is used as a category in the ‘student growth model’ and inflated the term to describe all westside teachers. Had I been consulted, I would recommended a different title:

Board Member Seeks More

Resources For Westside Teachers

My quotes in reference to the student growth model statistics, in large part come from the school board discussion on February 19, 2013, which as you are aware, are recorded and posted on the district’s web page as well as this blog.

The topic at the school board meeting was the STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT PLAN ASSESSMENT. One of the power point slides in the presentation titled EDUCATIONAL DATA and ANALYSIS had a bullet point on it: STUDENT GROWTH –Teacher Effectiveness Report. Link to Slide #3

I was looking at School Improvement Plans in front of me. They listed the 2011-2012, Teacher Effectiveness ratings by schools. I could see that westside schools had higher numbers in the “ineffective teacher” category. I then asked why is this the case?

The 67% “ineffective teachers” in the subject of science for one school was noted in their School Improvement Plan. That is my only reference to that number. See Page 6 of this School Improvement Plan

I’m not sure how one question in a school board meeting got shape-shifted into me saying that “69% of westside teachers are ineffective” because I never said that. 

My question was specific to the STUDENT GROWTH –Teacher Effectiveness Report as indicated on the power point slide in the school board study session. Link to Slide #3

As quoted in the Tribune article Christine Marriott responded to my question: “One of our big problems with our distribution system for teachers, is that we have a lot of new teachers in west-side schools every single year. … The rubber really hits the road when you are looking at whether our west-side disadvantage[d] students are with the most effective teachers we can put in front of them.” She added: “We need to do something to turn around that very pattern that you can see.”

Christine’s Marriot’s explanation matched what parents and westside educators had already been telling me. I had been hearing about the high teacher turnover rate at several elementary schools and how that was adversely affecting the life of the school and was a contributing factor to low student achievement scores.

I began to ask questions in the board meeting, in an effort to determine the relationship between “teacher effectiveness” and “teacher experience” against the demographics of the students.

The conversation was cut short by the superintendent who declared that we were not going to talk about it because the agenda item is “student achievement not teacher effectiveness”.

The following day I asked to have this issue placed on the agenda, I was told that it would not be placed on the agenda. (see Agenda Request) 

After being told that I could not discuss it in a board meeting and that it was not going to be placed on the agenda of another meeting; I could at this point choose to bury my head in the sand and ignore the problem or I could seek other ways to address it.

After consulting with other educators and parents in my community, I chose to file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. (see OCR Complaint)

Had I followed the lead of the superintendent and others in ignoring the current conditions, I would have betrayed the trust my neighbors placed in me when they elected me and the confidence you extended to me with your endorsement.(see SLTA Endorsement)

Since the Tribune article was published, I have been contacted by well over twenty educators with recommendations on how to solve the problem of the high teacher turnover rate in westside schools. Prior to this incident, other recommendations had already been offered. This continuous dialogue and exchange of ideas is a form of SHARED GOVERNANCE.

One educator pointed out to me that the school board had this very discussion in January of 2012. Sure enough, I went back and listened to the audio of the meeting. At the time, the curriculum department reported to the board: “Students in Title 1 Schools have five times higher chance of being with a marginal or ineffective teacher”. 

In response to that statistic the board president expresses her “alarm” and she repeatedly asked “what can we do?” at one point she ask “Where are we empowered to make some of these changes?” ( see Experienced Teacher Inequity: School Board Was Aware in 2012)

Had I been on that board at that time I would have said: “THE BOARD OF EDUCATION IS EMPOWERED TO MAKE THE CHANGES!” I strongly believe that school boards have the power to change the face of education within our own communities if we would only have the courage to act.

I am convinced that the revolving door of first year teachers in westside schools is of the district’s own making. When the system is not supporting the teacher, we should not wonder why that teacher does not want to stay in a westside school.

So the question is, how do we solve the problem of high teacher turnover in westside schools?

The top four solutions from the educators themselves is as follows:

• Utilizing the principles of shared governance, allow the community and teachers to form a committee and interview principals that submitted applications for an opening at that school. Then allow them to choose the best candidate for their school.
• Modify the one-year provisional category so that a first year teacher has more stability
• Realign the hiring process timeline so that we are in synchronization with neighboring districts.
• Allow Title I schools to have a full-time counselor and fulltime family involvement specialist

If you recall, in our Monday meeting, I stated that if OCR deemed my allegations as valid, the district would be allowed to go into an ‘early complaint resolution phase’. The investigation does not proceed and we could mediate the complaint by offering and implementing these types of ideas.

My purpose is to improve the working conditions of the teachers and the placement practices of the district, so that teachers are not pushed away from westside schools. Thus providing the much-needed stable academic environment where students can succeed.

I hope you can now, clearly see that it was never my intention nor did I ever advocate for the forced transfer of eastside teachers to westside schools.

Moreover, it is unfair to attribute a newspaper headline as words coming from me.

It is also counterproductive to demonize me for asking a data question in a school board study session. Isn’t that what board members are supposed to do? (see Angry Salt Lake Teachers Demand Apology From School Board Member (KUTV))

I am also not understanding (Elaine), how on Monday we can greet each other with a hug and leave a meeting with a smile (see attached photo) -then you turn around and send out information to teachers misrepresenting my position.

I asked for the meeting on Monday and came to you in good faith. In the future, I would ask that the courtesy of a phone call be extended to me if you feel I have done something negative towards SLTA. I am far from being the enemy of teachers. There is no need or reason to attempt to paint me as the villain. 

Please recognize that I live here on the westside. I see firsthand the destruction that is caused in a young adult’s life when they do not do well in school. I have spent time at the jail, hospital, and funeral home with parents who have lost their children to crime, violence, and death.

I am no stranger to the risk factors that a child from my neighborhood brings into the school. I am also aware that those risk factors take their toll on the student and the teacher’s ability to teach.

So when fellow board members and others chide me for being “angry” and “impatient”, I am guilty. They say they “don’t like my style” and they “don’t like the way I asked for an item to be put on the agenda”. Are those really good enough reasons to deny our children the best education we can give them?

Over the last three months, I have spent time with dedicated educators in my living room, in their classroom, in their office or the coffee shop; talking about ways, we can make improvements in the educational system of our district. I realize that we all have ownership in this community whether we live here or not.

As any educator from the westside knows, we are a close-knit community and we care about each other. Many of us are allowed to treat our neighbor’s children as our own in terms of support and correcting them when they veer off the path to success.

My contribution to my community at this point-in-time is to ask difficult and sometimes painful questions about the method of educational delivery.

As my neighbors’ representative on the school board, I follow these five guiding principles:

• Focus on student achievement as the number one job
• Allocate resources to support students based on their differing characteristics and needs
• Monitor return on investment and report back to my community with transparency and accountability
• Use good data to inform me on how to support student success
• Engage the community (parents & teachers)  in providing real opportunities to give input into the policy making process (w&g)

There is no question that I am deeply troubled by the current state of affairs. There is indeed a sense of urgency about me. I echo the words of LBJ: “In education the time we waste today is a life-time wasted tomorrow”.

I regret that I had to frame this problem in the form of a ‘civil rights’ violation and cast a shadow over the good teachers in our district.

I was however, left with no choice when we have a superintendent who has allowed the current conditions to flourish, and appears to have no desire to change the current circumstances or improve the working conditions for our teachers and the learning environment for our students.

Please rest assured that as member of the board of education; I am more concerned about an ineffective superintendent than I am with a student growth model that labels teachers.

P.S. Article that was recently published:                                             ARE SCHOOL BOARDS TOO INSULATED? 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865574539/Are-school-boards-too-insulated.html

Un abrazo,

Michael Clára                                                                                                                     801-205-0389                                                                                                                     Board Member, District 2

cc: Association Representatives

Elaine Tzourtzouklis, Executive Director &                                                                                             Susan McFarland, President

Met with SLTA Leadership today.

SLTA is the professional organization for teachers in the Salt Lake City School District focused on improving public education while serving as an advocate for teachers and students. We are classroom teachers, special education professionals, extended learning program teachers, speech pathologists, music teachers, librarians/media specialist, certified teachers on district assignments, coaches, counselors/social workers and interns.

Link to SLTA