The Peoria School District 150 Board of Education decided last month to discontinue live broadcasts of the school board meetings on public access cable television starting in May. Instead, they are going to show the meeting a week delayed, and they’re going to excise the public comment portion of the meeting — that is, they are going to censor part of the official meeting because they don’t want the public to see it.
However, since the school board meetings are open meetings, recordings can be made by any member of the public. Former Journal Star employee Elaine Hopkins made an audio recording of the public comments and posted it on her blog, Peoria Story. Kudos to her for keeping the public informed while the school board tries to keep the public in the dark. There are still a few kinks to work out; for instance, she’s uploaded the file in WAV format, which is uncompressed and makes for a hefty download. Once she learns to compress it into a reasonably-sized mp3 file, we’ll really be in business.
It’s funny. These comments used to be available only to those who watched the meeting live on Comcast Cable in Peoria. Now they’re available on demand to anyone in the world who wants to hear them. The school board’s attempt to suppress the broadcast of these comments has resulted in even wider distribution! I love irony.
Sharon – the parent told the office personell to tell the kids to “walk to their Aunts”, who lived nearby. The office person, who must have been distracted or didn’t take timely notes, miscommunicated the information and instead said to “walk to Gramma’s”
So how does the Specials teacher get fired out of that? More evidence of Admin covering for Admin – the well-being of the children is always secondary.
I guess it comes down to policy at the primary level. Communicating such information is extremely important–so who is responsible for communicating such messages to children? Hindsight is always better, etc. But surely there is a policy and surely such information should be in writing. Yes, I question why a teacher would be fired for this event. Right now Greg and Dan are doing just what I am doing–speculating about what really happened. 150 needs to speak up.
They won’t speak up. The facts would confirm what everyone already knows – Inept, overpaid admin always looks out for other overpaid inept admins – to the detriment of students and the teachers who serve them. That’s how the stomach turns in District 150. It will be interesting to see if Latham takes ownership of this situation and does the right thing or if it will be business as usual as the inmates continue to run the asylum.
Yes, effective communication is important. Did you know that authoritarians are poor communicators and believe children and parents are dishonest? Academic achievement declines under the authoritarian rule, behavior interventions increase, and staff and student mobility increase. When those in power ignore the warning signs, authoritarians become a financial liability to taxpayers. I don’t blame the people who get fed up and file lawsuits.
I agree about the lawsuits–when the administration can’t handle injustices, confusion, etc., the issues have to be addressed.
I think the problem is that school personnel didn’t call the parent back and tell them to take care of their child. It is not the school’s responsibility to act in “loco parentis” when school is out. Had it been me or my staff… I would told them to call the mother back and tell her get her kids or they will sit here until she does. I wouldn’t take the responsibility (because that is exactly what they did when they took it on themselves) to pass on the information… right or wrong.
Too bad we aren’t teaching 3rd or 4th graders to be able to think for themselves. I’m sure they could make better decisions than some parents and school administrators.
Charlie–I may be wrong, but I think that as long as the child is on school grounds on a school day, the school/district is responsible for them.
I would hope that your staff would actually write down the child’s correct after-school destination so that there would be no question as to where that child should go. That’s SOP for any secretary. If I couldn’t catch the child in the classroom, I GOT OFF MY BEHIND and went looking for the child to make absolutely certain they knew where they were to go after school. Some people call that CYA, but I call it It’s-Part-of-Being-a-School-Secretary. You have to care enough about the kids to do right by them, even if it means getting out of your comfort zone, (which was, in all honesty, behind my desk; I was a school secretary for about 3 years.) I’m just assuming it was a secretary that took the call?
Look, there’s ultimately only one person to blame for this , but, let’s be honest, as long as D150 is “on the case,” that person will remain at large at Glen Oak. God help the rest of the children….
I understand that. They weren’t on school property . They were I 74, apparently.
If Mom is upset about they got there… maybe she should be a bit more diligent. It is not the school’s responsibility to make sure Mom’s instructions are understood. (Mom says she said “Auntie’s house”. Well if my kids ended up on I 74, I would say that, too)
“there’s ultimately only one person to blame for this” or two… Dad?
School secretaries are swamped! They answer phones, make appointments, deal with injuries, deal with teachers, parents and children in and out of their office all day long. They have students sent to the office when there are behavioral problems that they are expected to watch, they keep records for payroll and the list goes on and on. They get in touch with the janitor about 50 times a day to clean up puke or clean a mess in one of the bathrooms. They have walkie talkies, phones, computers and an intercom system to deal with. Parents call all day long changing the way their children get home. What is surprising is that this kind of thing doesn’t happen more often. If anyone deserves a raise, it is the school secretaries. God bless them!
No one seems to know exactly what happened in this case. Rumor has it the children have been pulled from the school. Are they going to a new Dist 150 school or move them to a private school? Either way, messages can still get garbled. Rumor has it an employee was dismissed over this incident. Is this true?
The fact that the whole truth hasn’t come out makes for even more rumors, which seems to be the case with 90% of what happens in Dist 150.
I’m just having difficulty accepting that someone was fired because of this incident. There are too many ifs (which the district has not explained) to make one person the sole person to be at fault. If nothing was in writing as to where the children were to go, etc., then it’s one person’s word against another’s. There is even a chance that the children misheard the instructions.
believe it Sharon. An employee was fired and made the scapegoat (B.S. in my book). This employee was targeted from the get go. This person was not the person who told the children to go to their grandma’s in Pekin. This person told the child to ask his classroom teacher about going to the office and ask again. The teacher did send the child to the office at the end of the day and was told (again), Yes, go to your grandma’s. He said, “she lives in Pekin,” he was then told, “BE safe”. Parents are livid!
so sad–Then what do we do about that? Certainly, there is someone in this district who is willing to name names and expose the truth to the press and, hopefully, then to get justice–or does this employee stand alone or is there anyone to help?
Do I see yet another District 150 lawsuit coming down the pike?
You need to check out the PJS blog under this story about Glen Oak. I’m sure the latest entry will be pulled ASAP–as soon as the blog censor reads it.
Yes, you can be assured that people ARE talking.
Sharon, the District Watch Group has eyes and ears in every Department, in every building. No one is exempt from it’s watchful eye. Slowly but surely those that believe they can continue to act outside of the best interests of children without consequence will learn the hard way that they can’t. They can try, but their pathetic attempts to serve only themselves will be exposed in all their glory, for all the public to see – every pimple, every wart, every blemish. Public servants from the lowest to the highest echilons; beware. There is a new Sheriff in town, and it is empowered families and taxpayers who are no longer limited in their ability to understand and to react. Their motto is: “It’s all about the children”. The difference is, we mean it.
Yes, I am assured; from all I’m hearing this issue is anything but dead–the right people are being confronted, informed, etc., etc. Anyone who believes that District Watch is not needed doesn’t understand the precepts on which this country was founded. The formal group (very loosely organized, however) certainly invites others to join–there is strength in numbers. Transparency just must be the order of the day for public bodies. None of us are interested in making up stories, etc., but probing does ferret out the truth eventually. (Why would anyone have to make up stories about District 150?) The old “truth is stranger than fiction” always applies. Also, I understand that Haney of the PJS is doing his best to get at the truth. I think he may have hit a few roadblocks on I-74? Ha!
Just wondering, for no particular reason, who is ultimately responsible for approving school fieldtrips: Parents? Students? Teachers? Principals? Aides? Secretaries? BOE?
I do not know who approves the location, but children cannot go without a signed permission slip from parents. If they don’t have one, they stay behind.
The Associated Press has picked up the story about the students from Glen Oak.
http://www.pantagraph.com/news/local/article_3523aea2-61b4-11df-be8a-001cc4c03286.html
a district 150 school sent a whole 4th grade class on a bus trip without signed permission slips from parents.
You’ve got to hand it to the District. They find themselves in a “situation”, so set up and fire a token somebody, whether that person is to blame or not. Then they can tell the PJStar reporter that they have disciplined someone. The District, fully realizing that because minors are involved they won’t have to give names or details -falsely believe that will wrap up the story and satisfy the public. When will they learn? The facts will come out and it will demonstrate once again for all to see the Districts propensity to protect their own at the expense of 1. innocent people’s careers and 2. the safety and well-being of children. Then certain board members will lament woefully how the public is out to “get them”. I swear there is a going to be a made-for-tv movie about this some day.
District watcher-
Great post. As far as your comment about protecting their own at the expense of ……
you need to add the taxpayers. When their attempts to cover things up result in lawsuits the taxpayers are also on the hook.
David Walvoord must go! He enables these people to act like monkeys at the expense of taxpayers. The District’s Attorney David Walvoord ONLY looks out for David Walvoord. WALVOORD MUST GO!! Can somone tell me why Mary Davis is still on the payroll? Has anyone seen this article today? THIS is how you handle public servants that betray the public trust! This guy plead “not guilty” to felony theft and misconduct charges but they knew there was enough to get him off the payroll anyway. Mary Davis has 16 felony counts against her – and we are still paying her – nearing $100,000!! http://chicagoist.com/2010/05/08/school_supt_flowers_resigns_from_no.php
GET-RID-OF-WALVOORD and replace him with someone with a sense of right and wrong and maybe we can make some progress. District lawsuits have increased over 1000% under his watch. GET RID OF HIM!!! NOW!!!
The outside counsel must go? You are kidding me? What is his fault?
Don’t you think you have strayed too far from the flock?
150 observor–I think Walvoord is supposed to give the district good legal advice–do you believe their actions indicate that they receive good legal advice? I guess there is a chance that they ignore good legal advice. District Watcher–you are so right–this situation just can’t go away for the reasons you have given.
Sharon- You make a good point. They have either received bad legal advice or ignored
the legal advice that they have received. The district’s handling of the Davis/McArdle case is an example of this.
150 Observer asks: “What is his (Walvoords) fault?
Where do we start? He is either incredibly corrupt, or incredibly incompetent. You pick.
Nobody here has any idea what legal advice the outside counsel gives 150. None.
It is one thing to crack somebody over the head for what they actually did–another to call for a firing with absolutely no information–just a wild ass guess.
One of the issues with all attorneys and clients is that they aren’t consulted until the horses are out of the barn. Or that their advice isn’t followed or a host of other issues. Man, when people just jump to totally uninformed conclusions, credibility is lost. This is Oliver Stone stuff.
Let me add that David W. isn’t the only outside counsel that 150 uses.
If I was an attorney and my client refused to follow my advice I would probably suggest they find legal counsel elsewhere. Of course I am not an attorney so maybe that is not an option.
150 Observer, You are naive to think that Board members don’t talk. We know enough about what is said behind closed doors. In 2008 when a majority of Board members looked the public straight in the eye and told us that less time in school for our grade schoolers was better, I realized there were some big time problems.
Agreed there is an Oliver Stone quality to it. Doesn’t make it not true. Too many stories and people willing to tell them to not believe it. I have a feeling you are a nice person. You too will eventally experience a rude awakening, and when you do, we’ll leave the lights on for ya!
I don’t get your post. When did I say “board members don’t talk”. I have never posted that Dist 150 hasn’t made some awful decisions. That said, I hope posters would support what they say and don’t just make stuff up. Thank you.
Just because their lawyer tells what to do legally, that doesn’t commit them to following his advice.
I know of many cases where someone says on advice from their attorney, when in fact their attorney gave them DIFFERENT advice than what they chose to do.
Rumor has it that a teacher was dismissed. It is my understanding he was dismissed for something that did not pertain to the children found on I-74, but for something completely different. It just happened to come at the same time as the district’s latest fiasco. So, if I follow the rumor mill correctly, the district wants the public to believe he was let go over the children’s mishap, but that is not the case at all. Anyone else have any information on this? Why don’t they just come out with the truth instead of leaving everyone guessing? Then again, is it our business every time an employee is released from the district?
Until the the Trewyn video incident occurred, I never remember a time when the public was told why a teacher was disciplined. However, terminations are always a matter of record. That information isn’t given out at board meetings; however, employees who are terminated are always named in the minutes of board meetings and the minutes are posted on the 150 website.
Rumor Mill – You are partially correct. They did dismiss a teacher. Allegedly they dismissed him for a trumped-up unrelated incident. They did this so they could report to the press that they took disciplinary measures. What they don’t say is that it is not in relation to this incident. Sad for the teacher, and sad for the kids that are still exposed to the same set of circumstances and Personell that caused the danger in the first place.
http://www.pjstar.com/news/x150481583/Investigation-cost-District-150-more-than-19-000
I would hope that the parents and the Glen Oak students would speak up to clarify who told the students to go to their grandmother’s. I would hope the district cared enough about getting to the truth to ask them that question. Certainly, letting the public think that the teacher was dismissed because of this incident is dishonest.
This statement by Durflinger cracks me up: “In this case, we had to prove whether there was any truth to the accusations or not. . . . There was not.”
As if his internal investigation “proves” anything. LMAO! By the way, I hear it is far from over….
If they hadn’t given the secretaries those crazy raises they would still be ahead of the game! Can’t wait to see the bill on Mary Davis, who they also claimed did nothing wrong. Is she still getting paid?
My understanding is that D150 is racking up quite the charges in the MD/McArdle civil case. The district has one attorney representing the Board, Broderick and Hinton. Because of the criminal charges they also have to pay for another one to represent Davis.
In this case, we had to prove whether there was any truth to the accusations or not. . . . There was.
If D150 had turned over the accusations to the police on the front end it would not have cost the district $19,000.
D150 better start listening to “employees” when they say “things don’t seem right”. Activity funds, missing technology from RR, school administrators NOT doing their job, etc. Perhaps the BoE needs to start treating district money like it is THEIRS instead of easy come, easy go. Waste, waste, waste…..still paying MD, probably going to get sued over secretary raises, misappropriation of technology (thats saying it nice), and parents who will probably sue over children told to walk to Pekin from Glen Oak School. I thought Hinton picked the money tree clean before he left. Hope they planted another one. They will need it.
And I hear the current special ed director, Mary O’Brian, has racked up quite a large amount of lawyer fees due to her several mistakes and not being able to handle things on her own very well.
Costly – why would the District be paying for Davis’ criminal defense?
Frustrated-
They are not paying for her criminal defense. Because she has been accused of theft there was a conflict of interest with the same attorney representing the district and her in the civil case. The district is paying for a separate attorney for her in the civil case. This means that D150 is paying for two attorneys during all stages of the lawsuit including filing paperwork, depositions and the trial.
Good point, Frustrated.
Ok, maybe I framed my question wrong before. You state Costly that there is a conflict of interest “with the same attorney representing the district and her in the civil case.” In your posts, there is an implication that the District is paying for some type of legal representation for Davis. I can only assume you mean McArdle case, not Davis’?? Davis is a named defendant in McArdle’s complaint.