I have a question for all of you…
By releasing Dr. Hicks from his duties (but continuing to pay him until June 2008), has the board “whitewashed his record”? Have we really lost the last 6 years as one Racine resident suggests in a recent JS story?
I’m sure I will take plenty of heat for this, but here is my take on the matter.
First, a brief overview of the facts: Dr. Hicks did NOTHING illegal; he acted with the authority OUR ELECTED BOARD granted to him. PBCG is taking bonuses in the “savings” they found, even though most of the savings are revenue enhancements that will result in higher taxes. Again, because Dr. Hicks was granted the authority to enter this contract – there is NOTHING illegal going on here.
Slimy and unethical, definitely – but not illegal.
As far as losing the last 6 years on an academic level, this is rather hard to prove. Educational reform is rather subjective – what works in one city may not work here in Racine. Every community is unique and has its own challenges and Racine is no different.
So let’s talk about his reform initiatives. Why haven’t they worked? I challenge you to simply Google the phrase “school reform”, you will soon discover, as I have, that many districts across the country have found much success using the same concepts Dr. Hicks brought to the district. Why has it worked in other places, and not here?
There of course are numerous answers to this question – the most obvious one is the “leadership” factor. For many unnamed reasons, Dr. Hicks failed to engage the teaching staff from Day 1 and never really recovered.
So in short, I believe the RUSD board did the right thing by accepting Dr. Hicks’ resignation and “whitewashing” his record.
OK, now let me have it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
"Dr. Hicks failed to engage the teaching staff from Day 1 and never really recovered."
Failure at this basic level and unethical behavior (though not illegal, highly unethical) should not be, under any circumstances, rewarded with a whitewashing of a record.
If you were forced to leave your job in the private sector, that black mark will follow you every time you apply for a new job - why do we continue to give these swindlers a pass?
Exactly what message are we sending our kids? FAILURE IS ACCEPTABLE - INCOMPETENCE IS ACCEPTABLE - UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR IS ACCEPTABLE!
And we wonder why the United States has become the champion of mediocrity. It's called accountability, Brenda - there's none to be found here.
Perhaps you missed my point or I have not explained myself correctly.
Currently, there is no way to get "rid" of somebody in the public sector unless they have done something illegal (and sometimes it's even hard to get rid of those who have been accused of illegalities).
I agree that someone needs to be held accountable, but I was pointing out how difficult it is to get rid of anyone in the public sector. You can see this in other areas of government also.
The point I was trying to make is that the board (by asking/agreeing to his resignation??) is the most prudent and practical solution to the matter. We simply cannot afford to drag this out forever and ever. Perhaps,because I have kids in this district, I can see how this is going to affect the schools.
This is NOT a "good" solution but the best one possible for this district.
Now the voters must hold the members of the board that allowed this travesty to occur accountable!
I agree with all your points 100%, I am simply working my frustrations out via this forum...
Brenda, can you please elaborate and tell me in what other districts has continuous progress been successful?
Brenda, I'm also working out my frustrations, which I'm sure pale in comparison to yours.
But are you telling me there was no ethics clause in Hicks' contract?
Kat -
As you are away, Dr. Hicks reform iniative-CP is his own version of Mastery Learning. While the jury is still out on whether it has had any kind of success is still unclear, the broader concepts of Mastery Learning makes sense academically.
Mastery Learning, ML, is an instructional strategy based on the principle that all students can learn a set of reasonable objectives with appropriate instruction and sufficient time to learn. ML puts the techniques of tutoring and individualized instruction into a group learning situation and brings the learning strategies of successful students to nearly all the students of a given group. In its full form it includes a philosophy, curriculum structure, instructional model, the alignment of student assessment, and a teaching approach.
Advantages:
1.Students have prerequisite skills to move to next unit
2.Requires teachers to do task analysis, thereby becoming better prepared to teach the unit
3.Requires teachers to state objectives before designating activities
4.Can break cycle of failure (especially important for minority and disadvantaged students)
Disadvantages (easily dealt with in most cases):
1.Not all students will progress at same pace; this requires students who have demonstrated
mastery to wait for those who have not or to individualize instruction
2.Must have a variety of materials for remediation:
3.Must have several tests for each unit
4.If only objective tests are used, can lead to memorizing and learning specifics rather than
higher levels of learning
Dr. Hicks has implemented all of the above here in our elementary schools. For so many different reasons, it has NOT worked as well as it should.
Atlanta and the Seattle schools districts come to mind, when asked when these concepts worked.
Caledonia Unplugged -
I have not seen a copy of Dr. Hicks contract, but I do believe the ethics of the superintendent are covered in Policy Governance.
But here we go again, when the board does their yearly monitoring - he has always been found compliant in all the categories.
Like it or not, the RUSD board is the poster-child for hands-off management.
Can you imagine giving someone a review and writing that this employee met the expectations, and then firing them?
Because of the lack of any concrete (meaning legal documentation) proof, I'm sure the district would have ended up in court. Then what, we would have huge legal bills - taxes would go up even more, referenda would be needed, those referenda would fail, more cuts in the classroom. It would virtually never end.
We now have probably the same result with less turmoil - so again, not a "good" decision, but the best one for the district at this time.
OK I'm done ranting...
ethics? accountability? The Board of Education itself does not have an ethics committee!! They have an Audit committee made up of Board members!! So again, yet another example of the wolf guarding the hen house. How's that for accountability?
In regard to Dr. Hicks and his ethics...under Policy Governance, he was operating freely within the fuzzy framework that was set up by the Board. All he did was act on what was his "reasonable interpretation" of the Board's policies!!
The Board gave him "permission to enter into contracts on RUSD's behalf" and he "was given specific authority to replace RUSD's CFO" and furthermore, "poor negotiating" from Dr. Hicks, and "good negotiating from PBCG, is not illegal."
So,whether we like it or not he didn't break the law...he simply manipulated the system through Policy Governance.
I want to clarify that: I'm NOT justifying what Dr. Hicks and PBCG have done...if it were up to me there would be legal recourse for their actions. In spite of the legal red tape...I do think that it is wrong to rip off school districts.
First, I don't believe that a "no turmoil" course of action is always the best. This district has a long way to go to regain public confidence - that "turmoil" would have at least given the public a reason to believe this might not happen again. But since you two have kids in the district, I do understand where you're coming from.
Some of the comments I'm reading from board members...I have absolutely no confidence in this group going forward. Have you seen the J-S article?
But, you guys are missing my point. Acting unethically is not breaking the law. A violation of an ethics clause can be totally and completely separate from any legal or illegal actions. Ethics violations are also often subjective.
Brenda - your point about positive reviews and then firing someone is a good one. However, it's totally moot when there are aggravating circumstances such as information withheld from the board or employer at the time of review. Akin to positive reviews for an employee, only to find out he's enabling another employee to steal from the company - doesn't matter that you haven't written him up - he's gone!
IF, (big IF) we had a board of education that wasn't comprised of a group afraid of their own shadows, (by shadows I mean the Racine "establishment") or more concerned about their political careers, they may very well have pursued an "out" from the contract based on ethics violations - no law has to be broken.
I can't imagine this man did not have an ethics clause in his contract - for goodness sake he's a superintendent of a school district! If he didn't, you can fault not only the board of education, but the attorney representing RUSD during contract negotiations. This would be a separate clause in his contract - not something contained in policy governance.
Again, subjectivity comes into play and manipulation of the system can be determined to be highly unethical.... Tom Ament comes to mind. Not serving any time in prison - did nothing illegal because he operated within the framework of the Milwaukee County Board and their votes, yet he bilked Milwaukee County for hundreds of thousands...millions if you add in all his croanies..all legally...yet highly unethical. It will take Milwaukee decades to recover financially, if even then. Legality and ethicality are two very different principles...and sometimes unethical behavior is even more damaging than illegal behavior.
You two seem determined to place more blame on the boe than Tom Hicks. I agree they carry a large part of the blame. But let me give you an analogy...a guy walks into a bank and demands money of one teller...three security guards are too busy chatting with other customers to realize anything is happening. Should the guy who actually robbed the bank not be held as accountable, if not moreso, than the security guards? After all, he committed a crime...the guards were just negligent. I realize this may not be the best analogy since this does deal with illegality.
Tom Hicks manipulated the system and sought out very lucrative contracts for his croanies, while purposely avoiding legal counsel. Am I to believe Hicks was so naive that he didn't believe he needed legal advice on a contract? Those actions were done with full knowledge and premeditation. His croanies, in turn, recommended $300 million (undoubtedly to be funneled to an extended group of croanies) for facilities updates; and another group who at the very least completely mismanaged the district's books, and will not go away from this relationship any poorer. The board simply overlooked all this.
I'm sorry...HICKS IS A GROWN MAN WHO KNEW HE WAS DOING WRONG AND NOT OBEYING THE STANDARDS FOR HIS PROFESSION...THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF AN ETHICS VIOLATION. And was it not Hicks that convinced the board of policy governance to manage the district? The fact that the board allowed this was negligence on their part, but still may have happened without policy governance...again Milwaukee County and Tom Ament. The only way Policy Governance plays into this is Hicks KNEW he could get away with what he was doing because he was successful in putting in place the lax policy tool he needed to make everything else happen - making his acts, IMHO, even more unethical.
Please you two, try to understand the difference and not let this guy off the hook - even though he's laughing all the way to the bank. IMHO, he should not have been allowed to resign, and if he was, the board should have fought for an ethics violation to break the financial contract. They may not have won, but very possibly would have. If they'd lost the district probably wouldn't have suffered much more financially than they already are and a clear message would have been sent. Of course this is all predicated on...IF THERE WAS AN ETHICS CLAUSE ;^)
If we continue, as a society in general, to be so afraid of a lawsuit and resulting turmoil, that we're not willing to hold individuals like Tom Ament and Tom Hicks accountable, don't be surprised if citizen apathy grows to an even higher level. That will not bode well for RUSD, or any of us.
OK my rant over... ;^)
Believe me, if I were on the Board and had to deal with this mess I would have fought like hell to make sure that he not only left RUSD without one more Racine taxpayer dime in his pocket, but I absolutely would try to pursue legal recourse to recover lost funds that belong to our kids. Our elected officials at least owe us that.
But this Board doesn't see it that way. There are Board members that even now still think that Dr. Hicks is a great guy.
And yet others seem to be ever vigilant with their watchful eye on the taxpayer's dollar, pinching evey penny they can, not wanting to spend one more cent on investigations, legal fees, and court costs; even though it was their "lack of oversight which got us into this situation to begin with.
I suppose in the Board's own way, by letting them go quietly they think it saves face. Afterall, why admit that they made a mistake, when they can just pay the mistake to go away. Why not? Its not their money.
I don't know if there was an ethics clause in Dr. Hicks' contract. However, contracts apparently aren't RUSD's strong suit so I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't one. And their committee that was supposed to deal with ethical violations was comprised of the Board (who was blinded and asleep at the wheel). So who was supposed to call it out?.
As frustrating as it is, the BOE has "dealt" with the situation. I don't like how they "dealt" with it, but there is nothing that I can do about it. However, as elected officials, I can deal with the Board.
CU -
The comparison to Ament is a good one. Let's use that for an example...
Don't Ament and his cronies STILL have their pension plans? Granted, it is a costly mistake for the taxpayers of Milwaukee County, but a mistake that will PROBABLY never happen again.
Same here. The only kind of accountability we (as taxpayers) have is at the polls; and I plan on using my power accordingly.
I agree that the RUSD board needs to "improve" itself because the public perception of them is now at an all-time low.
I will reserve further comment until I see the results of the PBCG "renogiation".
Hopefully, the board will have something for the public by the September 10th meeting.
On more thing, the fact that I have accepted and understand the board's decision to whitewash his record does not mean I necessarily condone their actions.
How I personally feel is irrelevant since I was not in a position of power to change the outcome.
However, I do the the power to perhaps change the make-up of the board, and I fully intend to exercise this power at the polls.
Brenda,
In your original post you said you believed the board did the "right thing" by whitewashing his record. That statement implies you condone their actions. There is a big difference between accepting their actions (because you realize they had no other alternative) and believing they did the right thing.
But I sincerely hope you're right that this probably won't happen again. I have no reason to believe it won't! In Milwaukee, there was a HUGE TURMOIL including the recall of Ament and most of the County Board - they're not likely to forget for a long time. I'm betting the whole Hicks affair is a distant memory for most of the memory challenged in Racine in less than a year.
And how you personally feel is NOT irrelevant! You're a taxpayer - this is your money being squandered! You have every right to yell, scream, holler and keep the pressure cooker on full boil.
The lack of righteous indignation (and we're all entitled to a whole heck of a lot of that right now) at what's occurred is exactly what will leave the door open for this happening again.
I have talked with one of the board members and apparently there wasn't a specific ethics clause in the contract - HUGE BLUNDER by the attorney representing the district during contract negotiations. That, IMHO, is not the board's fault. You cannot expect citizens to be up to speed on contract law when you're paying an attorney to cover those bases.
Please, please, please if nothing else...keep the pressure on this board to include a very specific and well-crafted ethics clause next time.
As I mentioned earlier, there was an article in J-S (don't know if you saw it) that has magically disappeared from the online edition. It contained quotes from each board member. Whatever they're smoking - PLEASE GET ME SOME! I want to live in the land of never being held personally responsible for anything ever again!
And I'm hoping that what you mean by "you have the power to change the make-up of the board" means you'll consider putting your extensive knowledge of RUSD to work and challenge one of the incumbents? ;^)
Okay, bad choice of words perhaps.
Maybe I shouldn't have said "right" but the "best" choice.Considering I think that this was the best decision for the circumstances.
Or maybe it was a subconscious decision to invoke anger from all of you.
Who knows?
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
So..... where is toilet? Hehe))) Joke, relax ;)
Thanks
Post a Comment