FYI, to anyone who would like to comment on this article. I've just received another nasty comment that accuses without providing a shred of evidence.
I have already witnessed the willingness of people (including certain interested parties) to post nastiness, ad hominem attacks, or even libel when they can hide behind "anonymous" or a pseudonym.
I am not a fan of pseudonyms, however I generally tolerate it on this blog to provide teachers and staff with the ability to share their thoughts without fear of being targeted by the district administration.
However, considering the nature of this article, the shockingly weak reporting in The Spokesman-Review on the PDC complaint, and the hateful comments posted to the SR articles (which the SR appears to be tolerating), I'm refusing to play.
Today is "Just say 'no' to trolls" day.
Therefore, you may post anonymously here if your comment is thoughtful and careful, even if you disagree with the evidence I've provided and the conclusions I've drawn.
You may not post anonymously if you post ad hominem attacks or libel or nastiness.
The PDC has had this problem for decades. I filed a complaint against the Kent SD in 1996. They advertised in the school lunch calendar, used class time to encourage kids to tell their parents to vote 'yes', stored pro-levy signs in my kids elementary school hallway for distribution, and spent $6250 of taxpayer money to a research firm to analyze why they lost the first levy election and recommend strategies to win the next election. The money spent on the research firm was excused because the levy committee "didn't know about it and didn't use it". (Yeah, right. Sure I believe that.) Even if that were true, it would not have been legal. The other complaints were completely ignored. I would have considered it a victory if there had been even a dollar of fines. The PDC is a complete joke. It protects the entrenched powers and picks on whistle-blowers and challengers.
Ms. Rogers, I applaud your courage and I will be encouraging my legislators to open an investigation of the PDC's handling of this case – and hopefully referring the findings to the AG.
Mindful of your long post here, my reply must necessarily be long, as well. So I will submit in two parts.
I've been investigating Spokane's District 81 for some time now, in its awarding of contracts and purchase orders for goods and services. In addition, whether an individual or business supports the levy matters a great deal in certain decisions, so I hear.
Their slow-roll of your records requests, and the character assassination they have engaged in with respect to you are, for the entrenched interests at the district, just another day at the office. There appears to be little they won't do to protect the obscene amount of money that flows to their personal bottom line.
If anyone needs affirmation of just how effective Ms. Rogers has been attempting to open a window into the inner-workings of the financial behemoth that comprises Spokane's District 81 – they need look no farther than the intensity of the district's efforts to besmirch her name and character.
They have been doing this to Ms. Rogers for some time, with special intensity since she became aware of her right to gain access to their communications via the Public Records Act.
- Ms. Rogers was just "annoying" when she made a convincing case to the major publishing house Rowman & Littelefield for publishing a book exposing the failure of the constructivist approach to math education, using Spokane Public Schools as the model example of that failure.
- Ms. Rogers was an "irritant" when she organized well-attended public forums to explore the district's failed math curricula.
- Ms. Rogers was "bothersome" when she insisted on parent input and, gosh, actual parent participation in the selection of a new high school math textbook.
- Ms. Rogers began to merit "special attention" when she suggested that folks should closely examine what they were getting for their money before they vote for or against the Levy.
- But, Ms. Rogers became "dangerous" when she asked where the levy money actually gets spent, and then demanded, as is her right, the records of communications with respect to those expenditures and the promotion of the levy that generated that money.
At the point Ms. Rogers became a danger to continuation of the status-quo (the free flow of money to fund extravagant salaries and preferential treatment of levy supporters in the district's dealings) she became a target of the district, and by extension, of the district's faithful PR machines – the local print media and certain sympathetic local legislative members.
The district has been passing innuendo and conjecture about Ms. Rogers, her motivations, and her mental state to local media and legislators for some time.
This was important to the district because they were trying to gut the Public Records Act, and Senator Lisa Brown was helping them try to gut the Act. That way no one else could become as dangerous to their "Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous" program as Ms. Rogers had become.
So, fellow citizens, this is what you face if you have the courage to question your "betters." Character assassination, legal battles, obfuscation, opposition by an elite whose interest appears to be money – money – money.
I was stunned to stumble across your 2008 review of public schooling within the U.S.
It is uncommon to the point of nearly unfeasible to discover a scholarly article written with such precision and grounded in truth.
I encountered "The Network" you described when I attempted to bring institutionalized apprenticeship back to U.S. public schools.
Over a period of three years I lived in Switzerland and conducted participant-observer investigations of the Swiss "dual-system" within science and engineering disciplines. This research was conducted after I had completed undergraduate study in Computer Engineering and gained five year's experience as a Computer Systems Engineer working on nuclear missile subs and on the NorthWarning Radar in the Arctic Circle (where I worked shoulder-to-shoulder with engineers from around the world).
In short, I was funded by the German Marshall Fund of the United States as no U.S. government agency would fund such work. I published in international engineering journals and designed pilot curricula based upon the Swiss model. I received written endorsement for the pilot from Microsoft's AATP certifying program and from Novell's NEAP certifying program. I authored grant proposals to the NSF (ATE program) to fund the three-year pilot.....in five states, with teacher, principles and superintendents advocating for "Project Gelegenheit" (Swiss German for "Opportunity") not one school was allowed to implement the program.
Goal: Student graduates with AA in Computer Science, possesses two year's practical experience, holds Skills Certification from Microsoft, Novell or CISCO and doesn't owe a penny in government "student" loans.
This initial pilot was set in place in 1999 with New York State BOCES, NYSEG, Microsoft and Johnson City High School....and would have been funded ( $750,000) for three years by NSF.
Result: I was blocked from completing my doctoral degree and prevented from defending master's thesis for six years. While teaching Computer Science at Worcester Polytechnic Institute I received support of WPI faculty and one dean from XXXXX Graduate school so I was finally given a non-academic "MPS" certificate after having completed five year's of international research, publishing, teaching as an adjunct at Hartwick College and the XXXXX Law School and gaining written endorsement from Microsoft and Novell. I was given terrible references so prevented from professional employment and tenure - track teaching appointment at Hartwick and other colleges.
This is not a personal "tale of woe" as God has blessed me abundantly with/in my own business and I am using my knowledge to place unwed mothers into internships here in Virginia and continue to write grants for the Paul Stefan Foundation which cares for these young women and their infant children.
My point in writing is that I knew several graduate students who enrolled at XXXXX to attempt to invoke change in our failed academic system. Every one was either compelled to alter the research focus or was blackballed.
I often encounter folks who ask "why is the U.S. so far behind other nations in education", very few would believe the truth.
God bless your endeavors to spread truth.