I’ve been looking at the Interactive Illinois Report Card for District 150. Here are the total expenditures of District 150 for a period of eleven years, 1997-2008; in the last column, I converted all the amounts into constant 2008 dollars to make it easier to compare apples to apples:
|
 |
Looking at the inflation-adjusted dollars, and acknowledging that it does appear to have started a downward trend, you’ll nevertheless notice that from 1997 to 2008, operational expense per student has increased over 17%. However, if you look at enrollment over roughly the same period (1998-2009), the trend is different:
|
 |
I wanted to include the 2008-2009 data so you could see that enrollment did go up slightly that year. Nevertheless, enrollment from 1998 through 2009 fell by 9.4%. As a result, operating expense per student has increased over 24% — from $9,184 in 1997 (in inflation-adjusted dollars) to $11,398 in 2008.
Questions: Why have operational expenses continued to climb while enrollment has been decreasing? Why are expenses $25.4 million more in 2008 than in 1997 (in inflation-adjusted dollars) when enrollment fell by over 1,400 students? Where is the money going?
Jon, for certain reasons I can’t give you the list that you want but why not ask for it yourself in a FOIA request? You would then have some real hard evidence to refute me, wouldn’t you? Just as I mentioned to you earlier not everyone was listed in that newspaper article and there was a reason for that.
I understand your concern about baseless claims but these claims are only baseless to ones whose refuse to read the writing on the wall.
Two cents – what are the “facts”? All you got is that Brad U was hired for the same salary he made in NC for doing much of the same work? Anything else?
Come on now Jon the first step in recovery is admitting you have a problem, so you can admit your a mouthpiece for the new superintendent. Listen to me Jon, it will help you, okay? 🙂
Johnnie, it’s your claim, not mine. I’m not going to waste D150’s time on a fishing expedition.
That said, I’ll give you the benefit that you could well be correct. You just haven’t shown anything yet. Couple that with your paranoid delusions that I work for D150, and, well, I would be foolish to simply “trust you” at this time. 🙂
Johnny, just curious, but did you see in the PJStar that article about how some people believe 9/11 was a hoax perpetuated by our own government?
Incidentally, I’m going to go eat now, hopefully I’ll have time to come back later tonight. I just didn’t want you to think I was “scared” of all these “tough” questions if I don’t respond to you immediately.
Perry Mason,
If McArdle was afraid she might get fired for reporting that, why DID she report it when it was brought up by payroll? Why did she “instruct her secretary to respond O’Neill was being paid to student teach”? If she was afraid, why would she be the one to clearly spell it out for payroll? Why didn’t she instead simply refer payroll to Davis?
“Afraid” doesn’t describe Julie McArdle.
District 150 is taking its show on the road. The Sept 27 board meeting will be at Harrison School. They haven’t figured out yet (a week from time for the meeting) what they will be using for mikes–there are only two “traveling” mikes at Harrison. It should be interesting.
The new board lawyer, Robert Gates, introduced himself tonight–since he sees my name on FOIAS, two of which he has denied. 🙂 One I sent to the state and the other I rewrote. Anyway I very much appreciated our conversation and his willingness to discuss the FOIAS on a one-to-one instead of just sending back formal letters, etc. In fact, he even told me that the state has asked the district to provide more information as to why my FOIA was denied. I very much appreciate that kind of honesty and his friendly approach, etc. I think the district is trying to figure out its boundaries in responding to FOIAs and our boundaries in what information we can request. I understand that and will learn to write FOIAs within those boundaries.
If you have some proof or documentation of wrongdoing, send it to Dave Haney at the PJStar. Or–to Patricia Benassi, maybe she can use the extra “ammo”. My personal experience is that over-speculation leads to accusing innocent people. I will also add that if it turns out that D150 admn was allowed to stand before the board and report a 3X significant ISAT improvement at a high school without disclosing that the numbers included 7th and 8th grade results, change is NOT coming to D150.
Jon, I can’t tell if you are trying to put some of the blame for the student-teacher situation on to McArdle. (I don’t think so, but I can’t tell for sure). First of all, this person seemed to have asked for and or was offered some special privileges that were completely against the rules of the college from which she was to receive her degree–that makes her culpable. Davis, of course, was wrong in offering the “early” pay and/or allowing the infractions that weren’t OK with Eureka College.
Secondly, McArdle–early in the game–was trying to figure out just how loosely District 150 runs things. She knew that Davis had some clout and that just maybe someone had actually OK’d this arrangement with the student-teacher. Heavens only knows we all know that stranger things have happened and been OK’d.
“Heavens only knows we all know that stranger things have happened and been OK’d.”
…………Like 12 years of Valda Shipp being a principal.
Sharon – now FOIA the atty bills and see if this personal “conversation” resulted in a billable hour to the district. Whadya think? Maybe three reams of paper or more…
Just sayin–Oh, yes, I have considered that. In fact, Terry asked him the question. I try not to be too cynical–he really is a pleasant person. I definitely am “FOIA curious enough” to find out how much he has made looking over my FOIAs.
TR64–That is my next question. Was the board duped by Manual’s 17 pt increase in reading and 20+ points in math? I do wonder who thought we would be fooled by this tactic? Elaine Hopkins did post my comments on her Peoriastory.com blog. I am especially critical of such tactics to give the public the false impression that Johns Hopkins is making such a dramatic difference. I think it’s almost a 4X improvement.
Sharon–did you view the tape of the Supt’s speech at the donut party? (I love that–donut party. Did you know that donuts are one of the top ten worst foods to eat?) Didn’t she highlight D150 results and state that the Manual admns were her “best friends”? It was weird (IMO). Anyway–I still have my fingers (and toes) crossed that change is coming to D150! smiley face for Jon.
Sharon, I can’t tell if you are trying to say that McArdle knew all of this was wrong, but chose not to do anything about it for whatever reason, and that you condone that behavior, yet still find fault in O’Neill, to the degree that she should not have a job at D150.
Firstly, you state “this person seemed to have asked for and or was offered some special privileges that were completely against the rules of the college from which she was to receive her degree–that makes her culpable.”
What rules and how do you know she was aware or should have been aware? Another commenter said “She also knew that she was NOT supposed to student teach where she was previously an aide AND where her children all attended.” Is there a prohibition on those items?
The Eureka College Administrative and Course Catalog (230 pages), in reference to Education majors, does not state any of that. Here is what it says about student teaching:
“Student Teaching – Application to student teaching is made during the junior year. No
final placement will be made until the teacher candidate has passed the content area
test(s) for his/her major. Requirements for student teaching are:
? Completion of all Content Area and General Education courses
? Cumulative GPA of 2.50 or better
? Major field GPA of 2.75 or better
? Pass all ICTS Subject Matter Knowledge Test(s) for major
? Final Portfolio Review
o Professionalism – Candidate’s Philosophy of Education
o Classroom Management – Candidate’s Philosophy of Classroom
Management
o Content Knowledge – Topic Dependent On Major
o Teaching Strategies – Strategies of Teaching
o Technology Literacy – Curriculum Web
? Conference with Program Director(s)
? Interview with the Cooperating Teacher
? Candidate Resume
? Criminal Background Check/TB Test
Teacher candidates are also responsible for their own housing and meals when the
College is closed. Dormitory arrangements can be made through the Student Programs &
Services Office for these occasions.”
Take a look at the Illinois School Code or the Illinois Administrative Code regarding teacher certification. I can’t find any such restrictions there, either.
That doesn’t mean the rules regarding student teaching for a previous employer or school where your kids go don’t exist for Eureka College – but it’s not part of their 230 page Academic and Course Catalog nor does it appear to be against any state rules on teacher certification and student teaching.
Question: After all of this stuff was discovered, did O’Neill still student teach at Lindbergh, where McArdle was principal, and then serve full time the 2nd semester, still under McArdle? If this person, who some on this blog claim should not be employed by D150, is so unethical, what, if anything, did McArdle do about it while she was her boss?
If you’re going to lay blame at O’Neill such that she is dishonest and unemployable, you should save some for McArdle. On the other hand, if you give McArdle the benefit of the doubt, you should likewise do the same with O’Neill. Nothing has been show here thus far to prove otherwise.
P.S. – here is a link to Bradley’s 146 page Handbook dealing with teacher certification only. No prohibition there either.
http://www.bradley.edu/academics/ehs/Clinical.shtml
As a recent graduate of Bradley, in an education major, I can attest that, at BU at least, you can not receive money from the school in which you are novice or student teaching. They even go so far as to make sure that you have not had any recent interactions with potential schools.
This would mean that drawing a paycheck from a school for a semester not yet worked is enough of a reason to be removed from the program.
It was me that brought up the income tax question. I, too, have an education degree and did my student teaching in Dist. 150. It was out of the question that student teachers were paid while student teaching. So, my thinking regarding income tax is that you can’t be paid while student teaching, so the monies would have to be claimed for the semester you were supposedly working as an aid. That did not sit right with me.
Jon, I have reread my posts about the student-teacher situation. I don’t think I stated that she should not have been given a job with the district. If I did, I should not have made that judgment. Did I say she was dishonest or unemployable? I did say or imply that if she knew that she shouldn’t do her teaching at Lindbergh that she, too, was culpable–but I didn’t say what penalty that culpability should carry.
In discussing the situation, I did use the word “seemed”–perhaps I should have used more qualifying words. I don’t know the answers to all of your questions about whether or not she was allowed to continue student teaching, etc. I believe it is Davis’ culpability that is more in question. I have assumed (having heard the story previously) that the statements about Eureka’s policies were true–there is always room for error or misinterpretation. Is there any possibility (definitely just guessing) that student teachers have to fill out some forms attesting to their adherence to such policies–something that might not be in the handbook?
Just Wonderin’ – well, at least now it seems clear that she wasn’t paid during the time that she student taught, correct? But, if she had been paid during that time (and I appreciate that you made the distinction that “it was out of the question that student teachers were paid WHILE (emphasis mine) student teaching” rather than paid TO student teach) she would have received a W-2 for that period in which she received compensation, regardless of her status. No way would Payroll alter the W-2 to show it in the following semester, and it would have been foolish for O’Neill to even attempt to report her taxes other than what her W-2 shows (assuming she meets filing requirements, which would seem likely if she had been working there previously).
Now, it is also fairly common that some people (and businesses, but that is a whole different matter) get ADVANCES from their employer. Some get the advance simply because they are broke and their employer is willing to pay them “early” and others get it because they work by project and get paid an initial advance (say, you get $5k upfront to work on a $15k project). Individuals are cash basis taxpayers, so they are taxed on when the cash is received – not when the work is performed, so from a tax point, it isn’t problematic that she would have been paid for work not yet performed (but she’ll pay taxes on it a year earlier).
So, it doesn’t appear that anyone was agreeing to pay O’Neill FOR student teaching, but rather, just advance her for the following semester. Not ideal, to be sure, but not tax cheating, not theft, not even dishonest, etc. (as various people have commented)
mama – according to the complaint, O’Neill worked at Lindbergh for several years. It seems fairly likely that Eureka College was aware of that when they let her student teach there. And since she wasn’t getting paid TO student teach, but her employer (Davis, at least) was willing to advance her the monies for future work, she might have thought she wasn’t doing anything wrong. I understand that you, and others, may disagree, but if it was SO wrong (enough that she shouldn’t be employed by D150), do you think McArdle was at fault for not proactively doing anything about it?
Does anyone out there know of a time when District 150 gave anybody an advance in his/her pay? Jon, I believe that to be an absolute absurdity. However, when I started teaching at Roosevelt, I had a very kind principal who gave one or more new teachers a loan because they weren’t paid right away because all of their credentials hadn’t been processed by the district–that was personal, not district, money.
Jon, sorry but it is quite a stretch to say that Davis was her employer–her boss, yes, but not the employer who issues checks. District 150 principals are not free to hire and fire on their own–Thank goodness! I’m trying to figure out how McArdle would have known right away that the student-teacher was being paid by the district. I’m not sure how payroll is handled at the primary school level. At the high school, I believe a secretary handles payroll–it might not have been immediately obvious to McArdle–just speculating. Nobody has said that McArdle felt comfortable and/or on firm enough ground to start blowing any whistles as soon as her suspicions about anything were aroused–at least, I would hope she would be that cautious.
However, I do not (and have never stated) believe that any of this has anything to do with the IRS–certainly, the government doesn’t question why an employee is paid–just interested in drawing in the taxes.
Also, if she was student teaching (and not working as an aid) and McArdle learned she was drawing a paycheck, she and anyone else might well have assumed that she was being paid for student teaching. Seems like a logical conclusion to me. Just speculating–but what would have happened if she had received a job offer (not in 150) after she finished student teaching and, therefore, had left Lindbergh–how would District 150 have handled getting its money back?
It’s an absurdity to give an advance of pay? Maybe D150 hasn’t done it, but I can assure you that many employers have. I have worked for places that have allowed it and and others that don’t.
“I’m trying to figure out how McArdle would have known right away that the student-teacher was being paid by the district.”
Well, start by reading the complaint (link previously provided), because Davis specifically told McArdle about it. (and McArdle didn’t immediately go to payroll about it, either)
Jon, see you’re trying to turn an educational institution into a business. 🙂 Again, when Davis told McArdle, McArdle had every reason to assume that Davis was on the up and up and was following a procedure that had been approved by the district; remember Davis was, by then, a central administrator herself, so why wouldn’t McArdle believe that Davis had checked with those above her. However, when payroll questioned the situation, McArdle probably began to question what may have already crossed her mind to be a strange situation.
If O’Neill did receive monies while student teaching, they are the only one I have ever heard of doing so. I’m with Sharon. It isn’t like Dist 150 to pay in advance. And, it was also me who believed that if this practice did take place, it was unethical. Now, this is all hearsay at this point, so considering that information, I believe it would be unethical on the part of Dist 150 to make an exception for one person (though I have no knowledge or proof if they ever did it in the past). I also believe it would be unethical on O’Neill’s part to accept money during the time she was student teaching when she knew others were not being paid. Do I believe it would be tempting? Absolutely! But ethical? No.
Sharon and Just Wonderin’ – actually you’re at odds. Sharon thinks its reasonable to believe student teachers can be paid – reasonable for principals like McArdle to believe that, too. Just W thinks everyone knows (or should know) that no one gets paid in any form, and thus it would be unethical to accept any advance.
Sharon, you prove the point. If you think McArdle was just fine, in believing Davis, then why assume O’Neill wasn’t merely following what she thought was OK because Davis said so. Why assume culpability on O’Neill’s part?
WHAT!!! When did I ever say it was reasonable to pay student teachers–I must be writing in my sleep if I said anything close to that. I did say that if (and that is a big if) that McArdle might not have realized right away that the student teacher was getting a check. (Oh, didn’t Davis tell McArdle that the pay was an advance–that’s the part McArdle may have believed. Others, not knowing about the deal, would have thought she was being paid for student teaching). Again, no matter what McArdle thought or even if she had seen the check, Davis had told her it was OK. I don’t know too many new employees who question the actions of their bosses. And, even if, they (or McArdle) have some nagging suspicions going through their minds, they aren’t going to get their whistles out without thinking long and hard about the situation.
Remember that McArdle was in a new position and had many jobs. This situation was probably just a blip crossing her mind while she was concentrating on her many tasks. It undoubtedly took a while to start questioning what was going on.
Jon, you do keep forgetting the courts have decided that there is a case against Davis. As to the student teacher, I don’t know what she knew about the Eureka rules–and neither do you. If she knew the rules and broke them, then she is culpable. Also, I didn’t say that McArdle was just fine in believing Davis–just cautious. End of story until the courts rule. For the record, I have proven your point in your mind only.
Sharon mentioned she met attorney Robert Gates at the Dist. Board meeting. Is he the Board attorney that replaced David Walvoord? I thought Beth Jensen took Walvoord’s place when he retired?
When I filled out the paperwork for student teaching, BU asked me to list all the schools I had previously or were currently working for. I was also asked to identify at which schools did I know teachers and/or administrators. I remember asking them to define “know” as personal or professional. They wanted both. It took them a long time to find a school for me. I ended up student teaching at a school 20 miles away. I was told that I was allowed to tutor afterschool at that school, but I could not be financially compensated for it, as it constituted part of my student teaching experience. I was allowed to work (for pay) in another district. My goal was to have a job after graduation at a D150 high school. I had already been a substitute secretary and teacher’s aide for many years. I never even once considered asking the district to pay me for something I had not done yet, or may be likely to not do.
If this is what Davis was doing for O’Neill, then they both are ethically culpable. Not sure about the legalities.
Just for arguments sake, coaches do get paid in advance every year by 150. Jon, you are doing a fine job making our point. Keep it up.
Jon… please show us where you think Sharon wrote it’s okay for subs to get paid…
Coaches get paid “in advance”??? Are you referring to football coaches getting paid for summer workouts?
Jon-
I have been following this blog for quite some time. I have found you to be very objective and agree with you most of the time. That being said, I feel the need to add my 2 cents here.
I think Sharon makes a great statement here “Remember that McArdle was in a new position and had many jobs. This situation was probably just a blip crossing her mind while she was concentrating on her many tasks.
This is right on the money. Julie (my wife) was thrown in to this posiion with very little assistance from Davis and was faced with many challenges early on including dealing with questionable directives from Davis. She was told to pay Oneill because Oneill could not afford to go one semester without being paid. How did she know Oneill could not go one semester without being paid?
She also was told by Davis that Oneill was worried that Julie would say something to Eureka College professors about Oneill because Julie worked with some of the professors in the past. Oneill initiated this request to Julie through Davis because she knew the college would disapprove of the situation.
For the record, as you correctly stated, Oneill did not get paid. A check was cut, but not distributed.
Bottom line here. Oneill is not a thief. She did not take any money. She did know it was wrong to student teach at the school where she worked and where her kids were in attendance.
My wife was faced with many ethical decisions during her tenure at Lindbergh. I am proud of how she handled these situations. She did not do herself any favors by telling payroll the truth about Oneill and also questioning the arrangement that Mary had set up for her friend to provide counseling to the students. Many other principals would have done what Davis wanted, no questions asked.
Check out #8 on Illinois State’s Student Teaching Agreement form
http://www.teacheredcenter.ilstu.edu/clinicalexp-studentteaching/sttdocuments/studentteachingagreement.pdf
Frustrated, that’s an interesting question. Gates now sits at the horseshoe with the board. However, last night Jensen was sitting beside me in the “audience” and answered questions when asked.
Bottom line here. Oneill is not a thief. She did not take any money
She didn’t take it because her plans were foiled. It appears she had every intention of taking it, but fortunately astute and ethical employees put a stop to it.
Another integrity challenged player is working in the library at Kellar. If you recall, Lindbergh Librarian Terry Brohms allegedly knowingly allowed her personal address to be used in a fraudulent manner to circumvent the requirement of boundary waivers for children living outside the district. Evidence of this act by Brohms is included in the McArdle complaint. McArdle states in her complaint that Davis encouraged this to keep NCLB choice children out, and their higher-scoring counterparts in.
These employees should have been subjected to a disciplinary hearing and answered these charges. Did this happen? Why are they employed by the District while McArdle, who brought these horribly unfair and discriminatory practices to light, not? It is troubling that the District feels that these individuals are of sufficient moral character to be teaching our children.
In the eyes of many, this district along with the new superintendent will have no credibility until the injustices orchestrated by the Peoria Public Schools District 150 Board of Education against Julie McArdle are mitigated.
Sharon – Sounds like we were paying for not one but two attorneys last night.
Can’t have too many attorneys…
Thank you Keith for the additional information. I also appreciate the difficult situation Julie was in and the many tasks facing her as principal, especially as someone in their first year at that school.
If being told by Davis about the arrangement with O’Neill was only a “blip”, it is reasonable to assume that Julie didn’t initially recognize it as something egregious. That same benefit of the doubt for Julie should apply to O’Neill – in other words, she shouldn’t be condemned for merely asking for the arrangement (that was approved by Davis).
However, you state that O’Neill knew that Eureka College would not approve for her to student teach at Lindbergh. When did Julie learn that? It would seem she knew that from the beginning. Why would she knowingly allow that to occur? Why allow your school and the mentoring teacher to be a party to the deceit of Eureka College? Why not make a simple call to Eureka College?
The point is not to “blame” Julie. The point is, if people are going to have such high standards as to condemn O’Neill and state that she should not be employed by the district, then I’m sorry, but I think you must thus recognize Julie’s lack of addressing this part of the issue. If, on the other hand, you don’t fault Julie for allowing this to happen, because of Davis’ approval, then I think it only fair to give O’Neill some similar empathy – at least to the point of not immediately assuming she shouldn’t have a job here. (I’m not attributing either of those to you – rather, just a general statement)
(For anyone so concerned about O’Neill teaching children at D150, I suggest you contact Eureka College to make sure they are aware that they were duped by O’Neill. They can probably rescind her degree – or maybe they are already aware and feel it was just a “blip”?)
I also recognize that there is a difference between actively doing something unethical, and merely allowing that to happen. However, as a leader, like with a principal, that distinction is more gray. A culture of dishonesty is, like a disease, contagious. It generally begins at the top, but works its way down.
Personally, Keith, I’ve been in much the same position as Julie – a senior position in an unethical environment. I fought many battles – not every one – and ultimately paid the price. There’s not a day that goes by that I don’t fault myself for not doing more. However, I don’t really fault those employees not in leadership positions who were involved in the shenanigans. I am more quick to fault the managers who allow it to happen within their teams (and, yes, find more fault with the managers of those managers).
Beth Jensen may not be sitting around the horseshoe anymore, but she is now sititing to the right of the Chairmen at other BOE Committee meetings.
Charlie, who said anything about SUBS being paid? 🙂 What I said was:
“Sharon thinks its reasonable to believe student teachers can be paid – reasonable for principals like McArdle to believe that, too.”
I say that because Sharon said
“Also, if she was student teaching (and not working as an aid) and McArdle learned she was drawing a paycheck, she and anyone else might well have assumed that she was being paid for student teaching. Seems like a logical conclusion to me.”
Jon, first of all, you know as well as I do that Charlie meant to say “student teacher” instead of “sub.” I, for one, am tired of playing your “gotcha” game–and I can add McArdle to the list of people whom you are trying “to catch.” I didn’t say or even imply that I thought it was OK to pay student teachers. I merely said that jumping to that conclusion was easy because that’s all she was doing during that semester. Of course, you were not trying to find fault with my opinion, but you were trying to put a spin on the situation to make Julie look as guilty as the other “players.” I think it is fair to say that payroll intervened before or as McArdle had finished putting two and two together, so there is no way to conclude that McArdle thought it was OK to pay student teachers or even OK to pay someone for work not yet done.
Average teacher, you brought up coaches being paid in advance. I am not sure, but I think the practice of spreading out the pay over 9 months applies only to full time employees who coach, also. This very thing happened to me. I was the faculty advisor for the newspaper and was being paid “ahead” in some way. I quit in the middle of the year. Believe me; District 150 took the money back from my next pay check.
Sharon, if you’re tired of playing the “gotcha” game, please pay attention to what you write – and please pay specific attention to what I wrote.
If someone wants to find “guilt” in McArdle, they can reasonably do so – JUST AS so many here are willing to find “guilt” in O’Neill. That’s the point – so many are willing to caste stones without thinking who else might get hit by them. That’s what happens in an ethically challenged organization. Where does the witch hunt start – and where does it end?
Back to that “gotcha”. You previously said you thought it was an “absurdity” that D150 could “advance” someone pay. Then you acknowledge that you yourself were advanced pay for a job not yet performed. How ironic. (Maybe you should think a little more before you deem something “absurd”?)
We aren’t writing legal documents here; we are just blogging. However, you do take statements out of context–I believe that after my statement that you call into question, I did spell out why it would be poor policy to pay someone who might have taken a job out of the district–and then the District would have had to “ask” for the money back. My situation and that of coaches are different because we had full-time employee status.
I do agree, however, that what the student teacher did or did not do is fairly irrelevant to the McArdle-Davis case. However, that situation is part of the case, so I would assume that she might have to share her story in some form or another–maybe, I’m not sure. She certainly had no way of knowing that her request for a favor would end up as part of a legal case.
Again, you still presume that I said you or McArdle believed it is “OK” for student teachers to be paid. That’s NOT what I said (and why I suggested you look carefully at what I did say). I said that you said it was reasonable to assume that they CAN BE paid – in other words, that it COULD happen, not that it SHOULD happen or that it is OK that it happens. I said it to directly address the notion (by Just Wonderin’) that if it simply DID happen, it was unethical. That you essentially differed with that opinion (you were willing to allow that there could be a reason, even if the policy was dangerous).
As for the “full time status” distinction – some would claim it doesn’t matter. One could argue that, (O’Neill) having been an employee for several years prior, and understanding that she would be an employee immediately after her student teaching, that it was OK to advance it – at least OK to ask for.
No, we’re not writing legal documents here. We’re just accusing (in a public forum, most often anonymously) specific people of being thieves, tax cheats, liars and unethical. (not you, specifically, Sharon, but that others have already done so)
But, Jon, why do you keep attributing those words to me (and arguing only with me). I didn’t say the student teacher should not be given a job; I didn’t call her a thief, a tax cheat, or a liar. When people read your comments directed at me, they don’t bother to go back to check my words–they just accept what you say. That’s my complaint.
Also, for those of us who work in District 150, we just know that student teachers are never paid–so we can make those statements without any “coulds” “cans” or “shoulds” to qualify our statements. If one student teacher was paid in District 150, we would all have a right to believe it was unethical.
Also, to clarify, I wasn’t paid an “advance.” The money I owed the district when I quit the extra-curricular duty was the result of the overlap between when I was paid and when I last worked in that capacity. As for coaches being paid over nine months instead for just the months they work–I think that has much to do with the way the district budgets its expenses, etc. How confusing would the budget be if all these positions were paid on a seasonal basis?
Jon, I believe you took advantage of the editing feature and added your last sentence after I complained that I am not guilty as you charged (without the added statement). Thanks.
Sharon, the words I attribute to you are the ones I specifically quote. We both know that our posts are not merely between each other – that anyone can see. I hardly “argue” with only you (you don’t want to marginalize “Johnny” do you 🙂 )
Look, I made what I knew would be an unpopular argument (an argument – I really haven’t directly said my opinion on all of this specific issue). I’ve responded to those who have questioned me on it, it’s just that most of the questions have come from you.
And, yes, I did EDIT that last statement – even though I had said WE – I wanted it to be clear that I wasn’t accusing you of making those statements (nor myself 🙂 ) It was WE on this blog.
One silly question here…if McArdle’s lawsuit is still pending against Dist. 150, isn’t all this chatter about what went on with the student teacher dangerous to either side’s case as far as testimony/evidence?
Or has McArdle’s lawsuit been settled? I hadn’t seen anything about it.
On a side note, I invite commenters here to pose a question (that I will include on a list for the host) to Dr. Lathan and Engin Blackstone, Quest Charter Academy Principal. They will be in our studio tomorrow for a CAPtions TV show taping that will air October 3rd.
Sorry, Freudian slip… Subs DO get paid. Student teachers do the same job as a sub, only they donate their time.
Dennis, I don’t think anything said here thus far nor is likely to be said is damaging to either side – nothing that won’t or hasn’t already come out or was alleged from the date the complaint was filed. Keith, whom I respect, is obviously closest to the situation, but you’ll note his comments were very professional and I am confident he would back them up and elaborate if questioned more directly – just as Julie will during discovery/trial. From what I’ve heard about her, I expect she will have lots of documentation. Was there something specific you had in mind that was damaging to either side?
I think a good question for Blackstone is how, with grade sizes that are limited to 75 students, and pulling from the entire, and diverse, D150 student body, Qwest plans to address differentiated learning for each student’s skill level. I know they have lots of tutoring opportunities for those struggling, but what will they offer those who are well ahead?
Dennis, thank you for the invitation to ask questions of the Superintendent. Here is mine: Was there any type of investigation, disciplinary hearing or action against the two employees accused of violating district policy, and possibly the law, in the complaint filed by fired Principal Julie McArdle. Specifically, the two employees referenced in the complaint, and both now employed by Peoria Public Schools – Terry Brohms and Kelly O’Neill. In short, what assurances do parents/taxpayers have that these individuals will not participate in similar questionable behaviors in the future?
O’neil knew she was not supposed to be at Lindbergh to student teach. She was employed there and her children were and are students there. HOW could her cooperating teacher and other staff be objective in assessing her ability to teach if she already had a working relationship with them. Not only was I not allowed to student teach where my daughter went to school or where I had worked as an aide, but because I grew up in this town, was not allowed to teach in any of the schools in the district since I had family members at many of them. I ended up teaching in another town and am quite proud to say that without any “clout” or lack of objectivity, I still received an outstanding A, helping me graduate with honors. I do not believe O’neil is innocent of incredibly unethical behavior. She is now employed by the district she and Davis attempted to defraud……SAD