High-fructose corn syrup is particularly dangerous to Hispanics because of the way the liver processes it.  HFCS is showing to be a factor in diabetes, a disease that is on the rise among Latinos.  The fact that the district’s food service department is open to on-site cooking and whole foods means that they’re serious about the health of our kids.  It’s hard for sick kids to learn.

Anyway, Secretary Tom Vilsack of the USDA is coming to Centennial Elementary in northwest Denver. From the district:

US Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom VilSach will be making a special visit to Centennial K-8 School this Thursday at 1:30 p.m.  The USDA has heard many good things about nutrition programs in place at DPS schools, and the Secretary would like to see for himself how our schools are promoting healthy eating and nutrition education.

Centennial is a fantastic choice for a visit – lots of amazing programs going on, including a garden, a garden-to-cafeteria program (includes salad bar), and the school is one of the district’s scratch cooking sites.

Secretary VilSach will take an informal tour of the school, cafeteria and garden and speak with Centennial staff about the nutrition programs in place.

Cool!

Visit the district’s food service website (Leo Lesh is a rock star, by the way.)

Right now, the board uses a version of the “policy governance” structure to manage the district, which on it’s face is supposed to mean that this structure “enables the board to focus on the larger issues, to delegate with clarity, to control management’s job without meddling, to rigorously evaluate the accomplishment of the organization; to truly lead its organization” (Carver, 2010).  My position has always been that this is all well and good, but this sort of structure is only workable when all systems are running correctly.  You can’t really back off until you have a reasonable assurance of that.

I’m reading through The Policy Governance Model and the Role of the Board Member by John and Miriam Carver, which is the definitive publication that talks about policy governance. There is a very important passage here that really is my own driving force, that says

So if you are a board member, you must make your decisions on behalf of the owners, not the staff, today’s clients or recipients, or yourself.  Morally, even if not legally, you and your board colleagues are agents of the owners.

I take the “owners” to mean YOU.  Taxpayers, residents, parents, families, etc.

Supposedly this structure is supposed to create the single voice of the board.  But really what’s been happening is majority rule, and dissenting voices are supressed.

My conditions for going included talking about a governance structure that included a more collaborative governance structure.  I’ll be asking the group to consider a 2/3 vote to be a real majority, not just a simple majority; in other words, you would need 5 votes to pass something, not the current 4.  This would require “the other side” to convince at least one of the members of the current board minority to go along.  This means that the majority would have to actually compromise to make a decision palatable to the minority.

Of course,  I communicated this condition to the board president nearly two weeks ago.  He has not had the courtesy to even respond.

This doesn’t portend the best outcomes.  I’ll keep you posted.

Here’s a very interesting piece of information I came across.  It appears that nearly 10 percent of all kids that should be going to DPS, aren’t.  In raw dollars, that amounts to roughly $44 million a year that we lose in state funding for these kids.

Of particular concern to southwest Denver are the 2,393 students going to Jefferson County schools.  That’s roughly $14.3 million in state funds leaving for Jeffco alone.

Why aren’t these kids going to DPS?  It’s a great question.

In fairness, though, CDE’s data also says that 5,348 students that reside in other school districts come to Denver.  That’s roughly 7% of our student population.  Here’s that spreadsheet.  And 1,073 students are coming from Jeffco.

Here’s the data on the outgoing students, though:

pupil-membership1

As the legislative session is over, I do not currently work for him.  The session ended in May 2010.

Further, my board colleagues all knew that I worked for him from before I was even sworn in, as did my predecessor. She even scolded him for employing me.

We don’t agree on everything (he voted in favor of the SB191 teacher evaluation bill while I wrote a statement against it), but we both agree that this was the wrong type of financial deal to enter into.  The fact that no one can predict the future strength or weakness of the financial markets makes it all the more vital that public monies be kept away from such schemes.

I look forward to the outcome of the legislative probe, and I hope, for the sake of our schools, to be proven wrong.  I am also asking the legislature to make these transactions illegal for any entity that accepts state funding.

Happy to answer any questions about this…feel free to call me at 720-985-1665 or at andrea@andreamerida.com.

The Post and others have wrongly and unfairly distorted the facts. I endorsed Andrew Romanoff in November 2009, right after I won my own race. I was a volunteer from that time until May 2010, at which time I took the role of a consultant for field organizing.  I also translated and edited materials in Spanish. I earned $2,500 per month for these tasks.

Further, voters should know that at no time and in no way did the campaign attempt to influence my actions in fulfilling my obligations to the parents, students, teachers and retirees of DPS. To suggest that my work on the Denver Board of Education is for sale is to impugn not only my character, but Andrew Romanoff’s as well.

I am proud that I have kept the campaign separate from the business of the Denver Board of Education. There is plenty of video evidence to prove this (here is one example). However, I have raised questions about the pension payment deficits that threaten the financial stability of DPS. At every opportunity, I have focused on Superintendent Tom Boasberg’s lacking response to this crisis. I have never discussed Sen. Michael Bennet’s role in these dealings because he can no longer help us. It is now the sole purview of the current DPS board. Mr. Boasberg and my colleague, Theresa Peña, have consistently chosen to call our scrutiny “political,” instead of coming up with real solutions.

There is something telling in that stance. After all, the first step to recovery is to admit there is a problem.

I have worked hard for the good of our students. On average, I visit three schools per week and meet with community members every day. I pushed DPS to acquire the soon-empty Denver Lutheran High School campus. My vision for the campus is a grades 6-12 school for the students at West Denver Prep charter school. Because West Denver Prep students are accustomed to a small-classroom and rigorous environment, and because I want them to graduate, they need to continue in the same environment which is close to home. Our new Kunsmiller Creative Arts Academy in Harvey Park could then spread its wings and become the K-12 school that was the original intent. I believe my constituents want me to create this type of win-win situation for both charter and traditional school students.

I am a forthright and open communicator, and I hold strong opinions that challenge the status quo. My constituents can expect me to continue raising issues, asking tough questions, and pushing for honest answers. DPS has a lot of work to do, and I promised voters I would push until we make progress. That is a promise I intend to keep.


crossposted from Colorado Pols and Square State…

While DPS Superintendent Tom Boasberg continues to bask in the favor of the Denver Post’s editorial board, who calls dissent “not entirely necessary,” there is one simple issue that is omitted here. If the Board minority is perpetuating a canard, then show us.

After much study of the data provided by Mr. Boasberg, our conclusions paint a less-than-rosy picture. It is true DPS is paying what is required by the state legislature under Senate Bill 09-282. Our position, however, is focused on the entire piece of legislation, not just today’s good news.

While SB 09-282 allows DPS to take a deduction based on its previous financing of pension-related debt, it also calls for a “true-up” in 2015 to ensure DPS’ division of PERA is 100% funded by 2040. This requirement is established by statute in SB 10-001.

If not for the deduction included in SB 09-282, DPS would be contributing $90 million to PERA in DPS’ fiscal year 2010/2011. Instead, we’re paying $17.8 million, which the legislature allows. DPS is able to balance its 2010/2011 budget because of the SB 09-282 deduction. It can deduct $72 million from its PERA contributions to do so.

However, in 2015, PERA will make an actuarial determination if our contribution rate will meet the long-term funding requirements in SB 10-001. This true up is also established by SB 09-282. If PERA determines DPS will not be fully funded by 2040, it can raise our contribution rate. This risk is at the heart of my concern about the 2010/2011 budget.

On June 25, 2010, David Suppes, DPS’ COO, provided a spreadsheet showing what we plan to contribute to PERA over the next 5 years. Jeannie Kaplan’s figure of $369 million is based on that spreadsheet. Unfortunately, her number is a best-case scenario for DPS’ future budgets. In fact, if the actuarial amortization of 8% is applied to this number, as well as the current pension system’s unfunded liability of $386 million, DPS will face a $1 billion unfunded liability in the DPS division of PERA by 2015.

We have been asking for the game plan to soften the blow when we arrive at the 2015 cliff. We all will have to come up with a solution for this problem. However, the issue has not been adequately discussed during public board meetings, and information about the fiscal future of our schools has only been given to board members after repeated prodding. After all, the elected school board members will be held accountable for the fiscal state of the Denver Public School district, not the people who work for them.

Mr. Boasberg’s continued unresponsiveness to requests for information and his behavior while interacting with members of the board are cause for concern. We, as well as the public, are aware of his eye rolling and impatience with our questions. However, instead of maligning the character of his superiors, he could show us how we are wrong. We have asked for a full accounting of the long-term pension situation. We received a spreadsheet from the COO in response, and we have used the numbers in that spreadsheet to assess the situation facing our schools. This situation should be a great concern to any member of the school board, as well as to the people of Denver. We believe, therefore, that this is why dissent is important.

Because we believe that a fully transparent fiscal picture is the right of every taxpayer of Denver, we will continue to ask questions about DPS’ financial position now and in the future until they are answered. It is our responsibility as Denver’s duly-elected representatives to protect the future of our public schools.

Here are some videos from recent Board meetings around the pension situation.

Comments from the former head of the DPS retirement system:

Discussion on 6/17:

Comments from the last meeting on 6/30 (this is very long):

Questions?  Fire away.

The strange thing is that none of the Board majority had any questions for John.

Hittin' home runs for DPS kids!

We had a great school board meeting last night, and there was much fruit to be borne from the tree of collaboration.  Ok, ok, that was waxing a bit rhapsodic, but I’m proud of the leadership that was shown by my two colleagues, Arturo Jimenez (NW Denver) and Mary Seawell (At Large).  The two knuckled down and worked hard to craft resolutions that were passed unanimously so that we do right by the kids and families.  They forged a path of leadership that, in my opinion, changes how this game has heretofore been played.

Resolution for Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health (declaration of intent and provisions)

(1) That, through adopting this resolution, we recognize the need to continue and expand efforts to ensure that all young people have access to science-based, comprehensive, medically-accurate, culturally relevant, and age-appropriate sexuality education, information and resources to make informed decisions about their health and relationships; and

(2) That Denver Public Schools and eligible organizations shall pursue funding and other federal support to implement programs pursuant with the goals outlined in this resolution; and

(3) That we recognize that the provision of sexual and reproductive health education that incorporates comprehensive, science-based, and age-appropriate standards can result in youth delaying sexual activity until they are ready, avoiding unwanted consequences of sexual behavior, learning medically accurate information about their health, and promoting positive messages concerning growth, development, body image, gender roles, and all aspects related to healthy relationships and sexual behavior; and

(4) That we respect and affirm the right of parents to make health decisions for their children; and

(5) That broad-based community partnerships are essential when developing policies and implementing programs that affect the sexual and reproductive health of Denver’s youth.

As I said last night, Southwest Denver has the highest incidences of teen pregnancies of the entire Denver Public Schools, and we have to be committed to eliminating high-school dropouts wherever we can.  The scary part is that the age of young women getting pregnant is dropping lower and lower, per the testimony that we heard from Dr. Eliza Buyers, OB-GYN.  Her statistics included:

• In Colorado, 50 to 100 girls ages 12 to 14 give birth every year.
• In Denver, nearly 1,100 school-aged girls gave birth in 2009 – more than the number of students enrolled at North High School.
• In DPS, more than 1 in 4 ninth-graders report they have engaged in sexual intercourse and more than 60 percent of 11th-graders say they have done so.

Therefore, I’m proud of the stand we made with our young women.  We need them to stay in school, and having the right reproductive information helps them do that.

I need to mention for the record that this was a trail that was blazed by my predecessor, Michelle Moss.  During 2008 and 2009, she fought hard to have this very type of curriculum made standard in DPS, but due to political pressure at the time, she did not prevail.  Nevertheless, she should be recognized for her courage when it was not popular.

The next big win was with the resolution for an abeyance of new school seats in NW Denver and the formation of a community-led organization to map out the right strategies for feeder patterns.  In short, this resolution compels the district to participate in an open and transparent process to evaluate with community stakeholders and determine the best ways to reinforce the programs in NW Denver.  There is considerable clamor being raised for honors-track courses at North High School, as well as a need for attractive and proven programs like at Wheat Ridge and Jeffco high schools, and in order to do that, we have to map out how middle and elementary schools play into that plan.  Community overall has felt that there wasn’t a strategic plan for schools, and this resolution puts things on the right track.  Score!

The third big win was that the Board minority managed to put on the budget on hold, pending further information.  As I write this post, the Colorado PERA board is meeting on the results of their comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR), which will tell us whether we’ve been funding our pensions adequately.  Of course, my Board minority colleagues and I believe we have not, though the Superintendent vehemently believes the opposite.  His position is that we’re paying in what the state legislature told us to when our DPS retirement system was merged with the Colorado state employees’ retirement system (PERA).  As I told him last night, the levels that we were mandated to pay in were based on debt the district told the state legislature that we were holding because of the servicing of our pension bonds and the associated interest-rate swaps.  He thinks everything will even out in 30 years, which is the life cycle of the pension bonds.  As I stated last night, we’re taking money out of classrooms today to pay for the swaps, nor are we adequately meeting our pension obligations today.  It will come back to haunt us down the pike when we have to “true up” what we haven’t been paying, and until we can fix TABOR, this is a bad position in which to be.  We should be “socking away” money to meet the true up, and it’s the Board’s decision whether to feel comfortable with waiting for 30 years for everything to come out in the wash.  I don’t believe in kicking the fiscal can down the road.  It’s not fair to today’s kids, nor is fair to tomorrow’s retired teachers and elderly taxpayers that have to pay full property taxes to keep the schoolhouse lights on.

All in all, a good day’s work.

As of right now, he’s still trying to have back-room, closed-door meetings between the Superintendent and our experts. The point of the meeting we’re requesting is to have an open-air discussion of what’s happening.

I’m happy to report, though, that our Treasurer, Mary Seawell, is working hard to find an open and transparent solution to this problem. Kudos to her!

My colleague and I released the following statement about SB 10-191, the teacher evaluation bill sponsored by State Senator Mike Johnston.  This is our reaction.  How this relates to tonight’s Board meeting after the signatures…

One of the most difficult aspects of our job as school board members is to achieve the best educational outcomes for our students despite dwindling resources. We believe it is a civil right for each of the students in the Denver Public Schools to receive only the best classroom instruction; in fact, with only three to five consecutive years of top-notch teaching, we can eliminate the achievement gap. Given the fact that the Denver Public Schools is made up of 71% minority students, effective classroom instruction is the best, and most cost-effective, tool in our toolbox.

However, SB 10-191, the “educator effectiveness bill,” is not the right solution at this time. In our opinion, to impose weights on evaluations of teachers and principals without FIRST fixing Colorado’s educator evaluation system is unfair to our dedicated public education professionals, the overwhelming majority of whom make magic in our classrooms every day, in spite of dwindling resources.

Right now, in any given Denver school, there is an educator that may not be performing up to par. Worse, some of these low-performing educators may be employed where the most vulnerable students attend school. The proposed senate bill, however, does not properly evaluate effective teaching in many of our classrooms that are in schools deemed “low performing.” Currently, teachers can only be rated “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory,” and 99 percent of all Denver teachers are rated “satisfactory” after never having had a principal’s classroom observation, which is a required component of the evaluation. Of equal concern is the lack of any principal evaluation system at all. Further, within this broken system there is no way to recognize the work of an exceptional teacher, nor is there a way to help a satisfactory teacher to become an excellent teacher. There is no doubt that the lack of an effective and fair yardstick against which to measure and foster the best from our educators is severely hampering our ability to help our students achieve success.

Some of our suggestions for improving this proposed legislation include the following:

• Develop evaluations based on student growth, classroom observation, peer review and with less than 25% of the evaluation based on student standardized test scores.
• Update the standards for accreditation of teacher and principal training programs to reflect preparation for 21st-century, English-language learner and special-needs learner skills, as well as cultural/urban competency.
• Create standards for principals as effective instructional leaders.
• Broaden the scope of the evaluation scale from the current binary (satisfactory/unsatisfactory) to at least a five-degree scale: exceptional, highly effective, effective, marginally effective, and ineffective.
• Codify due-process rights in hiring, placement and retention polices for teachers and principals, so that each educator is given a non-subjective evaluation and the right to improve according to a fair plan.
• Develop a concerted, honest plan to include experienced educators in every step of the evaluation revamping process.

We call upon the Colorado State Legislature to set the horse before the cart and instead focus on the hard work of fixing our broken educator evaluation system. Let’s end this culture of targeting teachers and principals by giving school districts the tools to ensure quality instruction…first.

Arturo Jiménez
Vice President
Director, District 5 (Northwest, Central and Downtown Denver)
Denver Board of Education

Andrea Mérida
Director, District 2 (Southwest Denver)
Denver Board of Education

What does this have to do with today?  Well, you may recall that the Board postponed my resolution to fix teacher evaluations before we decided on a set direct placement policy.  Board member Pena decided to resurrect my resolution by also tacking on a resolution to approve this bill in the state legislature.  Board member Kaplan is siding with Board member Jimenez and me on this issue.  We don’t believe in blaming teachers for our failure to provide good and fair evaluations that garner the best results from teachers.

We have asked for member Pena to separate them, and she has agreed to do so, which is a great step in the right direction.  But my Board minority colleagues and I will be voting against approval of this bill, mostly because we believe it’s too premature to vote on the bill in its current, pre-amended state.  We expect to lose, but we thought it was important for the public to know our stance.