Does this mean that since the district is exemplary they don’t need to go out and shake down the tax payers for more money?

But then again, how will they be able to pay our overpaid superintendent Rocky Kirk, and his deputy, Susan Bohn, the LTISD’s “second in command” with only a teaching certificate in “Secondary Dance” and “Secondary Social Studies” as her qualifications.

According to Charles McClure of the Lake Travis View, this is the first time in the district’s history to be rated “exemplary.”

Wait a minute, there is more to this …

[See post to watch Flash video]

Did you know that the LTISD used the controversial Texas Projection Measure (TPM) to obtain the district’s recent “exemplary” rating rather than  meeting the “absolute standards” to earn their “exemplary” rating?

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) has a whole section of their web site dedicated to the TPM and how it relates to the recent ratings. Seems that the TPM has generated some controversy.

Bottom line, the TPM allows a school district to “boost” their ratings:

“When a student fails a test but shows enough gain to make it statistically likely that he or she is on track to pass during the next high-stakes testing period, TPM counts that student as having passed for school accountability purposes.”

- “TEA’s projection measures aren’t measuring up,” The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, July 12, 2010

Here is an excerpt of the TEA’s state ratings table showing that the district utilized the TPM to boost their rating:

LAKE TRAVIS ISD                          EXEMPLARY                             TPM ONLY
 LAKE TRAVIS H S                         EXEMPLARY                             TPM ONLY
 LAKE TRAVIS MIDDLE                      EXEMPLARY                             MET ABSOLUTE STDS
 HUDSON BEND MIDDLE                      RECOGNIZED                            TPM ONLY
 LAKE TRAVIS EL                          RECOGNIZED                            MET ABSOLUTE STDS
 LAKEWAY EL                              EXEMPLARY                             MET ABSOLUTE STDS
 BEE CAVE ELEMENTARY                     EXEMPLARY                             MET ABSOLUTE STDS
 LAKE POINTE ELEMENTARY                  EXEMPLARY                             MET ABSOLUTE STDS
 SERENE HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL          EXEMPLARY                             MET ABSOLUTE STDS

Funny how the district failed to mention this fact. A fact that significantly weakens Rocky’s claim: “The Exemplary rating is indicative of the superior instruction delivered in our classrooms each day.”

Let’s read more about just how  the districts used the TPM to artificially boost their lackluster performance:

Rep. Scott Hochberg and his Appropriations Subcommittee on Education got Criss Cloudt (the Texas Education Agency’s associate commissioner in charge of the “accountability system” that administers the TAKS test and ranks schools and school districts): “… to admit that 73 of the 74 additional ‘exemplary districts’ that took us from 43 in 2008 to 117 in 2009 received that distinction only because the new Texas Projection Measure miraculously allowed nearly half the 1 million TAKS tests that had been failed to count as passing for the purpose of rating schools and districts.”

- “Hochberg unmasks TEA’s controversial rule,” Rick Casey, Houston Chronicle, July 8, 2010

This year the TEA announced that:

“The Texas Education Agency (TEA) today announced that 239 school districts and 2,624 schools received Texas’ highest accountability rating of Exemplary.”

This is an increase of 122 districts since the 2009 ratings.

Rocky and the Board shouldn’t revel in their new artificial elevation, the TPM has been a lightning rod of criticism and might not be used next year:

“Education Commissioner Robert Scott issued a letter to school administrators last week saying he was considering changing the way TPM is used — or even suspending it entirely — next year. The 2010 TAKS scores and the accountability ratings based on them scheduled to be released on July 30 will include the boosts afforded under TPM.”

- “TEA’s school ratings next week will have a footnote,” Ericka Mellon, Houston Chronicle, July 19, 2010

Have you noticed how quickly the district moved to place this moniker on their documents:

Why doesn’t the district let us know that is was only through slight of hand that they obtained their “exemplary” rating.

You can get the facts from the TEA:

The TEA will continue to post the detailed data charts online this year, but it will add a simplified page showing whether a school benefited from the projection measure or the other two looser rules, according to the agency.

“We’ll have more information out this year as to how a campus came to meet their accountability rating,” TEA spokeswoman DeEtta Culbertson said Monday.

But superintendents and principals still will be able to tout their schools’ ratings on marquees and in press releases without an asterisk.

“I don’t know of anything that requires them to do that,” Culbertson said. “(But) it’s something certainly they should be honest about.”

- “TEA’s school ratings next week will have a footnote,” Ericka Mellon, Houston Chronicle, July 19, 2010

[See post to watch Flash video]

You can read more about the TPM and the 2010 TEA ratings from these additional sources, just to name a few:

“State may eliminate use of student testing projection measurement,” Austin American-Statesman

“Texas schools’ accountability ratings jump dramatically in TEA report,” The Dallas Morning News

“TEA to Dump TPM?,” Half Empty Blog Spot

“Loophole in law let some schools raise TEA accountability ratings,” The Sulphur Springs News-Telegram

“TEA School Accountability Ratings,” The Winkler Post

“Texas Education Agency releases statewide rankings,” The Austin American-Statesman (the comments are the best read here)

You should read the entire article, it is very interesting. Here are the first few paragraphs to get you started:

“If you were depressed by last Sunday’s discussion in this space of the fact that Texas students could pass the TAKS test with scores as low as 44 percent, consider this:

Even with such low standards, the Texas Education Agency decided to rate hundreds of Texas schools and scores of Texas districts as “academically acceptable” last year — the lowest “passing” category – by counting thousands of students who flunked the TAKS as passing it.

This academic alchemy was achieved through a statistical exercise called the “Texas Projection Measure.”

This complex formula, based on statewide TAKS scores from the year before, is said to identify students who failed this year but are likely to pass next year. Or maybe the year after that. Or possibly the year after that.”

- “Lies, damn lies and magic statistics,” Rick Casey, Houston Chronicle, June 21, 2010

Be sure to read the comments about the article as well.

After reading this article, it makes you want to ask just how well did the LTISD really do this last year? Academically that is.

Even with inflated numbers, the LTISD could only pull out “Academically Acceptable” (again), yet Rocky Kirk’s pay keeps on sky rocketing. Let’s not forget the sky rocketing pay of our Deputy Superintendent, Susan Bohn who will probably get another pay raise real soon.

Where is Marco Alvarado’s press release?

Interestingly the LTISD improved over their ranking last year coming in as 862 among 1622 of the nations highest ranked high schools in the 2010 rankings.

This year 126 Texas schools were included in Newsweek’s ranking.

Let’s compare several Austin area ranked schools with the salary of their superintendent for some further insight:

¹: Data from TEA 2009-2010 Superintendent Salary Reports

Look, our overpaid superintendent, Rocky Kirk has no bearing on the performance of the district. In fact, you could easily say that other school districts are getting much better value for their money!

A recent comment on the subject published in the Bee Cave Bee says:

“Westwood at 90, L.C. Anderson at 321, and Bowie at 820.McNeil at 525. Seems that other not so wealthy districts are doing better than Lake Travis. But then, we do great in sports.”

-“Barry  - Lets dont forget the others,” Bee Cave Bee, “LTHS among top in country”

I know, Rocky can send out Deputy Superintendent Susan Bohn to “dance around the subject” for him. Dance is one of Susan Bohn’s only education related certifications, other than “Social Studies.”

Just how did this happen if the school district had been enforcing their own rules? The 2009-2010 LTHS Student/Parent Handbook & Code of Conduct says:

ELECTRONIC DEVICES CELL PHONES, PAGERS, PDA’S
For safety purposes, the district permits students to possess telecommunications devices, including mobile cell phones; however, these devices must remain turned off during the instructional class time, including during all testing. The use of cell phones in locker rooms or restroom areas at any time while at school is strictly prohibited. A student who uses a telecommunications device during instructional class time shall have the device confiscated. The [student/parent] may pick up the confiscated telecommunications device from the assistant principal’s office for a fee of $15. Confiscated telecommunications devices that are not retrieved by the student or student’s parents will be disposed of after the notice required by law.

According to the news articles about the incident:

“According to a search warrant affidavit, an assistant principal found more than 150 pictures on a cell phone …”

150 pictures?! Now that is a lot of photography. We should also note that the photographs “were of clothed girls.”

A recent comment by someone posted on the Lake Travis View web site makes a very interesting observation:
“This is the dumbest and scariest thing I have ever read! A teenage boy arrested for taking pictures of fully clothed girls. I did not even realize taking photos of people without thier consent was against the law!
Since this is evidently true, I suggest no more photos be taken at football games (like the ones on the right). And for heavens sakes don’t take pictures at a basketball game where you might get an unsuspecting students fully clothed body in the photo! You will get arrested and charged with a felony!”

But to take 150 photographs would mean that the student was obviously using his cell phone a lot, even during “instructional class time?”

In fact the student was caught by another student during “instructional class time” according to the sheriff’s deputies:

“…he photographed a girl from behind during class, according to deputies”

Why does the district even allow students to have phones? They claim its “for safety purposes.” But who’s safety? If you need to communicate with your child, couldn’t you just call the school office? Does this mean that the district doesn’t know where your child is located?

Doesn’t this place another burden on the teachers to simultaneously “police” the use of electronic devices and deliver educational instruction?

Let’s face it, the district is hopelessly inept, the LTISD issued a computer to my son that included photographs of Heidi Gudelman’s (Principal of the Lake Pointe Elementary School) Las Vegas vacation.

Reality tells us that a recent “QuickNews” email from the district about the “inappropriate photography” incident can’t be true.

“The LTHS administration will continue to take all appropriate and necessary measures to safeguard our students and communicate with our parent community.”

If this were true, the district would have enforced their own rules and then this incident would never have happened.

Now if all this isn’t enough, the school district is allowing middle schoolers to use “music playing devices” at school.

My son recently brought home this permission form allowing him to use a music device at school.

Note that the 2009-2010 Middle School Student/Parent Handbook & Code of Conduct says:

Cell Phones, Cameras, and Other Electronic Devices
Students are not permitted to possess such items as, I-pods, CD players, tape recorders, other digital musical players, camcorders, DVD players, cameras, electronic devices or games at school, unless prior permission has been obtained from the principal.  Without such permission, teachers will collect the items and turn them in to the principal’s office.  The principal will determine whether to return items to students at the end of the day or to contact parents to pick up the items.

What brought about this change?

We need to ask the school district some questions:

Why do students need these additional distractions at school?

How does allowing these “music devices” enhance the educational benefit of the students? Does this help to elevate the LTISD above “academically acceptable?” How does this help Rocky Kirk make the LTISD “the most exemplary school district in Texas?”

How does the district think they can control the use of these devices? The district has already demonstrated that they can’t  or won’t enforce their own rules, so what changed? Can the district ensure that these “music devices” which are often “multi-use” devices will not be used to take “improper photos?”

How does this impact the teachers who are already spending time preparing, teaching and disciplining their classrooms?

“For years, “Recognized” and “Exemplary” have been used as bragging rights by school districts across Texas and in Kerr County, but those terms soon will be a thing of the past as the Texas Education Agency re-vamps and simplifies its district rating system.

A two-tier “acceptable” or “unacceptable” rating system will replace the current multi-level rating system starting in 2012, after the implementation of new statewide standardized testing.”

Rocky Kirk should be rejoicing! This will mean that starting in 2012 Rocky no longer has to explain why he can’t lead the district to be the “most exemplary school district in Texas.” Rocky Kirk has a long string of “academically acceptable” ratings obtained under his “leadership” and not one “exemplary” rating.

But, those districts who are truly rated “exemplary” and “recognized” will no longer be  identified for their hard earned achievements. Unlike Rocky Kirk, some superintendents believe that their districts should be given credit for their achievements:

“But some local administrators are wary of the new system, which they say fails to acknowledge high performing schools.

“I think it’s about giving credit where credit is due,” said Cody Newcomb, superintendent of Center Point Independent School District. “I have an exemplary elementary school, and I think it deserves that credit.”

Newcomb said that rankings for schools are an important measure of accountability and reflect the broad range of performances.”

But wait a minute, Education Week put out a grade for all of the states in the country and it rated Texas’ Standards, Assessments, & Accountability a “A.” Someone else thinks that Texas has a good accountability system.

Contrast this to the LTISD’s constant complaint that the current system is not fair.

“Ninety-nine percent of the failures come from people who have the habit of making excuses.”

-George Washington

It was the usual pathetic attempt by Rocky Kirk to say that the ratings were “not reflective of the exceptionally-high academic performance which  speaks volumes about the achievement and commitment of our students, staff, and parents.”

OK, now all we need is for Rocky to tell us just how he, as “The Superintendent shall be the educational leader and chief executive
officer of the District.” [LTISD Written Board Policy BJA(LEGAL), Texas Education Code 11.201(a)], will direct the improvements?

What is Rocky Kirk’s plan for the improving the district? Rocky fails to address any plan in this press release because I would assume he has no clue.

Instead Rocky let Myra Pettit explain that the district really didn’t understand the TEA process?

“We now have a better understanding of the processes used by TEA to determine longitudinal completion rates and annual dropout rates.”

How can that be?

Why did it take the district this long to “have a better understanding of the process?”

Have you read the district’s appeal of their 2009 rating?

Have you read the district’s  second appeal of their 2009 rating? (Note that this second desperate appeal letter by Rocky was submitted to the TEA well after the appeals deadline).

Isn’t Rocky still responsible for the district?

Is this Rocky’s usual process of trying to distance and insulate himself from his lack of leadership and management skills? I guess this explains why Rocky let someone else speak about topics he should have addressed.

We already know that since 2003 Rocky Kirk’s pay has skyrocketed. Rocky Kirk’s pay has increased over 60% to the current $252,799/year.

But how has Rocky Kirk’s outrageous pay increases “improved” the district? You couldn’t tell by the district’s TEA ratings which were relaxed this year accounting for the number of districts who’s rating improved, excepting of course, the LTISD which slid backwards.

So much for Rocky Kirk’s boast about making the LTISD “the most exemplary school district in Texas.”

Finally, why didn’t the Board of Trustees comment on the rating?

Do you think they even know or care? Note how Susan Tolles, the Board President comments about the recent loss of the recent tax increase but she remains silent on the district’s mediocre rating in this press release?

“Academically Acceptable” is certainly a mediocre rating for the amount of money we are being taxed!

“Accountability appeals changed the ratings of 19 school districts and 64 campuses, final results released today show.

After appeals, six campuses moved up to an Exemplary rating and 19 campuses and five districts moved up to a Recognized rating, while 18 campuses and 14 districts managed to upgrade their Academically Unacceptable rating. However, ratings remained unchanged for most districts and campuses. Overall, 81 of the 234 district or campus appeals were granted.”

- Texas Education Agency

Despite Rocky Kirk’s two appeals to the TEA regarding the LTISD’s 2009 “Academically Acceptable” rating, the TEA affirmed their determination that the district only met the standard of “Academically Acceptable.”

Just how did the LTISD slip back to “Academically Acceptable” again?

How can other districts achieve higher ratings?

The LTISD constantly complains about how unfair the rating system is, but how do other districts achieve higher ratings, even with less money?

The better question is: How do other larger districts with lower tax rates achieve “Recognized” and “Exemplary” ratings while the LTISD can only manage “Academically Acceptable?”

It doesn’t make sense that the LTISD with 6,536 students, one of the highest tax rates in the state and an outrageously overpaid superintendent can’t do better than “Academically Acceptable.”

And the district Board and administration wonder why the tax payers of the district said no more to their latest tax increase.

The answer is pretty obvious, the tax payers are not being served by the enormous amounts of our tax dollars that the district spends.

How can Rocky Kirk justify his $252,799/year salary?

How can Rocky Kirk  justify any more pay raises?

How can the LTISD Board of Trustees just keep doling out more money without demanding results proportional to the amount of our tax dollars spent?

Why has the LTISD been silent?

Do you think that the LTISD’s rating appeal has been turned down?

The TEA will announce the final decisions on November 4th, the day after the Rollback Election, you know, the election where the LTISD and their minions are seeking more of our money for Rocky Kirk’s outrageous pay and an overpaid General Counsel and another year of “Academically Acceptable” under Rocky’s reign, and …

Apparently very few districts were successful in their appeals. They should not have been since the TEA relaxed their standards this year already.

“Only a handful of North Texas schools were successful in appealing their state accountability ratings, despite an uptick in the number of disgruntled districts protesting their rankings.”

The Texas Education Agency notified superintendents last week but will not release results publicly until Thursday.

Appeals more than doubled this year, largely because of stricter dropout rules that affected completion rates and left schools scrambling to recount their students. In most cases, schools were too late.

- “TEA to announce results of ratings appeals this week,” Jessica Meyers, The Dallas Morning News, November 2, 2009

Hopefully the rollback election will be defeated and we won’t have to flush more of our hard earned money into the LTISD toilet.

It makes you wonder if it was Rocky who said:

“One superintendent of a 4A school district responded, “Man this is important.   The board has cut everything they were willing to cut before we called the election.  If the TRE fails we are going to have a $600,000 budget deficit tomorrow evening.  With the required salary increases in 10/11 we are projecting starting the budget that provides the same level of services with a 1.8 million deficit – If this TRE fails we will cut programs and call another TRE next year.””

- Supers Have Election Day Jitters,” Joe Smith, TexasISD.com, November 3, 2009

Note that the TEA did not redact the first appeal letter as much as the LTISD did in the copy that they provided to me^TPIA. You can read about the district’s first appeal to the TEA in a previous post on this site.

Just what was the the district trying to hide by their over zealous redactions? Susan Bohn probably did the redactions for the district. We all know her track record when handling public information requests.

Well, Rocky couldn’t just make one appeal to the TEA, he had to make a second appeal, via hand delivery no less.

Note that the deadline for appeals had already passed when the second appeal letter was “hand delivered” to the TEA.

Rocky even says so in his plea for reconsideration:

“The District met the Agency’s deadline for appeal when it submitted its letter on August 11, 2009. However, The District recognizes that the Agency may be reluctant to accept additional information, subsequent to the deadline. The District respectfully asserts that the information presented at this time, although not referenced in its August 11, 2009 letter, is compelling and deserving of the Agency’s consideration.”

Rocky goes on to say that:

“Specifically, the District is requesting that the Agency expeditiously include In its review and contemplation of its appeal, the fact that the 2009 Accountability contains prescriptive  guidance regarding cohort assignment of transfer students that clearly supports the District’s position in its original appeal.”

What?!

If you were the TEA and a district that was already rated “Academically Acceptable” told you that they screwed up their appeal, wouldn’t you just think that they obviously deserved what they got?

The LTISD can’t be looking very credible in the eyes of the TEA right now.

What were you thinking Rocky? Isn’t this too little, too late?

Why did Rocky Kirk think that a second letter was necessary?

Do you think that Rocky Kirk is concerned that the TEA is not going to reconsider the district’s rating?

Isn’t Rocky Kirk responsible for leading the district and ultimately responsible for the district’s rating?

Just how much does Rocky Kirk’s salary of $252,799 a year buy the LTISD? Apparently not much.

To the editor:

After moving to Lakeway three years ago, I became a science fair judge for the Bee Cave Elementary school as well as at the Austin Energy Regional Science Fair (AERSF) in Austin.

What I have learned is that there are many students that are enthusiastic about science, and would like having the opportunity to compete at the regional, state, and national level. I also learned that none of the schools in the Lake Travis Independent School District (LTISD) participated.

People in the Lakeway area probably do not know what a science fair is all about. Since the LTISD does not participate, little is reported in the local media such as the Lake Travis View.

“What is the big deal about a science fair?” Think about who did the research for the artificial knee that you or a family member will soon need. The people that make our lives better are the scientists and engineers that start at the elementary, middle, and high school level. Science fairs stress the “scientific method” that consists of recognizing a problem, generating a hypothesis, taking data, analyzing data, drawing conclusions, documenting results, and presenting results to your peers. This is what the science fair is all about.

So why does the LTISD not participate? I have been told that the paperwork is too involved and that there are no teachers willing to support this activity. There is some paperwork involved. Forms must be filled out giving various’ permissions, and insuring safety. However, there is a lot of assistance to help with the paperwork and to make participation possible. Austin Energy is willing to send representatives to the schools explaining the process to the teachers and administrators.

After seeing what goes on at the AERSF, held in February, you would wonder why the LTISD does not participate.

I would like to encourage the schools that do not now have science projects to at least give their brightest students the encouragement, support and opportunity to participate in the AERSF. I am sure the science teachers know what students would be appropriate

Just so you know, I am willing to assist in helping with filling out forms and be willing to review projects prior to sending them to AERSF.

For more information,, go to my web site, “thelakewaytutor.com” and click on the red “Science Fair Information” link.

Hamil Cooper
Lake Travis

-Letter to the Editor, Lake Travis View, Page 4A, October 1, 2009.

The next Austin Energy Regional Science Fair (AERSF) will be held on February 24-27, 2010.

You can get more information from the Austin Energy Regional Science Fair 2010 web site.

FYI: The web site gives these important “Dates to Note”

Teacher Orientation: September 17 and 23, 2009
Jr/Sr Registration Deadline: February 5, 2010
Elementary Registration Deadline: February 12, 2010

It’s a shame that the LTISD does not put much stock into science fairs, but hey, we do have a 4A championship football team with the largest high school weight room in the state of Texas!

Rocky is blaming the “academically acceptable” rating on four “Hispanic” students!

That’s right, four “Hispanic” students caused the LTISD to fail according to Rocky’s letter.

“After studying the completion status data of relevant students, the District has determined that the status of four students should be reconsidered. As you may know, in order for LTHS and, the District to achieve “Recognized” labels, the Completion Rate for the District’s Hispanic student group must be at least 84.15% for the District and the LTHS to meet the “Required Improvement” standard. The Hispanic student group Completion Rate reported by the Agency for LTHS (and thus the District) is 82.2%. If the Agency determines that the completion status of all four of the students discussed in this letter should be altered as the District requests, the Hispanic student group Completion Rate would increase to 86.7%. If the Agency determines that the completion status of just two of the four students should be altered as the District requests, the Hispanic student group Completion Rate would increase sufficiently to exceed the 84.15% necessary for “Required Improvement.”

Apparently Rocky wants to modify the completion status of these students so the district can be “recognized.”

“Also included, as Exhibit 8, is a chart providing detailed information regarding the effect that any modifications to the completion status and/or group placement of each of the students discussed in this letter would have on the Hispanic group completion rate of LTHS and of the District.”

(Unfortunately, I did not get a copy of Exhibit 8 names in Rocky’s letter to the TEA.)

Do you believe this? I for one do not.

Why can’t the LTISD achieve even higher “Completion Rates” for the district’s “Hispanic student group?”

Just how many students are considered as “Hispanic” in the LTISD?

According to last year’s Academic Excellence Indicator System report (the 2009 report is not available yet), the LTISD had 883 “hispanic” students in the district, 7.5% of the district’s 5,854 students. “Hispanic” students comprise an average of 47.2% of the students in the state of Texas.

Of these 883 “hispanic” students, only 27 were in the graduating class.

(Data from TEA, 2007-2008 Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) reports)

How hard is it to ensure a higher success rate for only 7.5% of the district’s students?

Why can’t a “property rich” district ensure that such a small percentage of the student population achieve much higher completion rates than the minimum state standards?

Whatever happened to “the most exemplary school district in Texas?”

If the LTISD successfully gets the TEA to overlook this supposed cause for the “academically acceptable” rating, that will mean that they would have barely achieved a “recognized” rating.

The material from The Story of Stuff Project being thrust upon our students was also the topic of a Glen Beck program aired on September 22, 2009.

Isn’t it the purpose of education to simply teach “facts” and then allow the students to extrapolate their own opinions?

Let’s take the debate between Creationism and Evolution as an example. If neither side can agree, then the answer is to teach neither but simply teach the fundamental science principles that no one can argue about.

This same principle applies with regard to the material being distributed by The Story of Stuff Project.

Teach the fundamental’s of critical thought and then allow the student to apply those critical skills to then formulate an opinion on the matter.

Yes, “opinion” is the result since the opinions presented by The Story of Stuff Project are simple that, opinions, unlike a fundamental scientific principle such as water is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

“Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”

-Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

According to the article “State’s districts rank low on spending but high on school debt” published in the Saturday, August 1, 2009 edition of the Austin American-Statesman:

“A new report from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that Texas school districts as a whole spend less per pupil than those in all but a few states — but collectively they’re also deeper in debt.”

- Eric Dexheimer, “State’s districts rank low on spending but high on school debt,” August 1, 2009, Austin American-Statesman

Let’s look at the LTISD’s bond debts¹:

¹Source: Texas Bond Review Board

Wow, look at just how much interest is going to be paid out for all of that debt!

Most interesting of all, note that the debt did not really start to take off until 2004. And to think that the district is anxious to take on more debt. Why? The growth of the district has been consistent and predictable (predictable to just about anyone but the Board and administration), yet they have sufficient capacity for some time.

I don’t think that anyone can fault the district for land purchases. Buy it cheap now and keep it until you need it (especially if you don’t have to pay taxes on the property), but they can’t even seem to do that right.

First it is an “eminent domain” fiasco and now the Board hires yet another law firm to help with land purchases, yet nothing to show for it.

Just what are they thinking? I should know better than to ask such a stupid question, but …

It’s just a matter of time before we are asked to send more of our hard earned money down the drain, for what, “academically acceptable?” Again? More pay for Rocky?

The TEA news release has some interesting data, particularly in light of the LTISD’s dismal rating:

“The number of Exemplary school districts rose from 43 in 2008 to 117 this year.”

“The number of schools and districts that achieved a Recognized rating also rose this year. The number of Recognized districts and charter holders increased from 329 in 2008 to 459 today.”

“The movement of schools and districts into the two highest and the lowest rating categories left a declining number in the Academically Acceptable rating category. Last year, 818 districts or charter holders were rated Acceptable, compared to 561 today.”

“Schools and districts received the state’s lowest rating if they failed to meet the criteria required for an Academically Acceptable rating. This year, 87 districts were rated Academically Unacceptable, compared to 32 last year.”

Wow, did you read what the TEA said: “The movement of schools and districts into the two highest and the lowest rating categories left a declining number in the Academically Acceptable rating category.”

Guess who moved DOWN? That’s right, the LTISD!

Just how did Rocky manage to pull this off? No doubt that this is all part of Rocky’s master plan to  “make the LTISD the most exemplary school district in Texas,” right?

Isn’t it time that we, the parents and tax payers demand better from our tax dollars?

I took the TEA ratings and included the latest AEIS numbers of each revenue per student for each of the districts so that you may draw your own conclusions about how well your school district did relative to the tax dollars received by the district.

Let’s do some comparisons of the ratings and the money spent by each of the districts.

*Note: I only included the 1022 “independent” and “consolidated independent” school districts from the TEA’s 2009 ratings.

Of the 1022 “independent school districts” in Texas:

Now let’s compare the average revenue per student for the districts in each of TEA’s rating catagories:

According to data from the TEA, the LTISD revenue per student was $11,709. If that were a gauge of academic performance, then why isn’t the LTISD “recognized?”

Let’s look at some school districts surrounding the LTISD* and their TEA ratings:

I selected school districts that the LTISD likes to compare itself to as demonstrated by their presentations to the attendees of “Leadership Lake Travis.”

Again, all I can say is: “Just what do we expect for our money? Mediocrity or Excellence?”

Compared to what the LTISD must consider “cohort” districts, we are not getting our moneys worth. Based on the results, Rocky will have a hard time calling them “cohort” anymore.

Now let’s compare the salaries of superintendent’s, or the “chief executive officers” (LTISD written policy BJA(LEGAL) and Texas Education Code 11.201(a)) of their districts:

You can even look at previous data relating the salary of superintendent’s to the number of students and you will find that the LTISD is even more skewed.

What’s wrong with this?

Now if we were in a “Fortune 500″ wouldn’t the LTISD be looking for another CEO?

Just what were Rocky’s credentials before his arrival at the LTISD?

What was Rocky’s experience as an “educational leader and chief executive officer?”

Wildly throwing tax dollars around, overpaying an ineffective superintendent, and lower standards (standards which are already low when compared to the rest of the world) yet the district still can’t …

It is a very interesting article that says among other things:

“Many Texas public schools are expected to show big gains when accountability ratings are released Friday, but a disparate group of critics says the improvements could be illusory.”

“But early indications are that the new measure will also help a large number of schools climb up the four-tiered accountability ratings scale and claim success.”

-Kate Alexander, “New measure of accountability success causes stir,” Austin American Statesman, July 30, 2009

Seems like a lot of school districts will benefit from lowering the standards except the LTISD.

Why can’t the LTISD pull out another “Recognized” rating when the TEA rating system has been so eviscerated so as to allow failing students to not count against them?

“For the first time, schools will be able to count as passing students who fail any section of the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills but are on track to pass in the future.”

-Kate Alexander, “New measure of accountability success causes stir,” Austin American Statesman, July 30, 2009

Let’s see … If the ratings were actually debased so much as to allow failures to be discounted, then what excuse does the LTISD have for not being “Exemplary” let alone the “most exemplary school district in Texas?”

I guess Rocky’s claim of 90% passing still wasn’t good enough to nudge the district higher?

“For example, our District results reflect a greater than 90 percent passing rate at every grade level tested in every subject matter tested, in the ‘all students’ category. That is exceptionally high academic performance, and it speaks well of our students, staff, and parents.”

-Quote from Rocky Kirk published in “LTISD challenging ‘acceptable’ rating,” Charles McClure, Lake Travis View, July 30, 2009

Let’s be honest folks, do we really believe the district’s claim that “one student could make the difference” between being “Academically Acceptable” and “Recognized?”

“One student could make the difference,” said LTISD Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum Instruction Myra Pettit.”

-Charles McClure, “LTISD challenging ‘acceptable’ rating,” Lake Travis View, July 30, 2009

As usual, the LTISD is crying about the “fairness of the system” rather than actively doing  something to improve their rating.

I want to know who’s head(s) will roll now? We have seen that in the past, after disappointing ratings, school principals have departed soon thereafter and Rocky still keeps getting pay raises. Interesting …

Hey, I have a great idea! How about giving the parents and tax payers a return on their investment that is commensurate with the amount of money we are being taxed? Is that so hard to ask for? It would only be fair since we, the tax payers, are paying so much more than other more efficient and higher performing districts?

Why did the LTISD make this announcement now?

Wasn’t it just last August that the LTISD announced that they were rated as “Recognized?”

Rocky what happened between your words on August 2009:

“The rating is a direct result of the hard work and dedication invested by our students, teachers, parents, and the entire LTISD community,” stated Dr. Kirk. “This achievement reflects the fact that large numbers of LTISD students are performing above standards, and we will continue to build on this tradition of academic focus and success.”

-Rocky Kirk, August 2008

and now, in July 2009 Rocky cries:

“Unfortunately, the preliminary ratings to be released by the state are truly not reflective of our exceptionally high student academic performance. The state system continues to be overwhelmingly punitive regarding the assignment of ratings.”

-Rocky Kirk, July 2009

Sorry Rocky, but the overwhelming data tends to show otherwise.

Just look at how the LTISD fared in the latest Newsweek high school ratings. The Lake Travis High School dropped almost 500 places  in the Newsweek ratings between last year and this year while our so called “cohort” (remember that Rocky?) districts maintained their ratings.

Guess it’s time to put lipstick on and try to sell this …

According to the TEA web site, the district has known this for some time now. The TEA says that district’s may appeal their ratings starting July 16. Why did they wait until now to break the bad news just a few days before the TEA releases the state wide results?

The TEA will be publishing the entire state ratings to the rest of us on July 31. When that happens, I will be sure to let you know just how the over taxed, academically acceptable LTISD rates compared to the rest of the state.

FYI: The Houston ISD has published a short document highlighting the standards used by the TEA in their accountability ratings.

This sure doesn’t make our overpaid superintendent Rocky Kirk look very good.

Hey Rocky, remember when you said that you were going to make the LTISD “the most exemplary school district in Texas?” How’s that working out for you Rocky?

How could a district who pays so much in taxes and with such an outrageously overpaid superintendent perform so badly? It’s just not fair!

Well, I guess we need to throw more money at the problem and approve that rollback election that they have been talking about so much. NOT! If anything, this news simply supplements what we already know.

If the district can’t do better than it is doing, what makes you think that throwing more money down the toilet will help?

This letter was not published on the paper’s web site, but it is another example of the district’s “fine achievements.” All part of Rocky’s master plan to make the LTISD the “most exemplary school district in Texas!”

“To the editor:
In case you missed this I wanted the Lake Travis ISD community to be aware that on June 23, the Austin American-Statesman ran a very informative article by Laura Heinauer “Graduations up in 10-year span in most districts.”

In the article we found out that Lake Travis ISD did not fare too well with a 78.4 percent graduation rate and that unfortunately it is in a group of 5 out of 20 profiles that show a downward trend in graduation for the period of 1996-2006. Lake Travis has a 0.3 percent decline in graduation rates for the profiled time period.

The peer ISD’s for Lake Travis in regards to graduation rates are San Marcos, Bastrop, Pflugerville, Lockhart and Round Rock. The ISD’s above Lake Travis with a graduation rate of 80-89% are Liberty Hill, Leander, Georgetown , Wimberley, Hutto, and Hays ISD. The ISD’s above Lake Travis with a graduation rate of 90-100 percent are Eanes and Lago Vista. The ISD’s below Lake Travis with a graduation rate of 0-69 percent are Austin, Marble Falls, Elgin, Dripping Springs, Taylor and Manor. I called Westwood High School and their graduation rate for this year is in the 90th percentile. I do not have specific information for them for the 1996-2006 time frame.

Eanes has an alternate high school at Westlake High School, Round Rock ISD has an alternate high school. Lake Travis and Lago Vista ISD’s do not have an alternate high school campus.

In my opinion, Lake Travis ISD needs to work harder and smarter to achieve the same high level of graduation rate excellence that Eanes/Westlake, Lago Vista and Round Rock/Westwood are able to achieve.

Chris Wilson
The Hills”

-”Letter to the Editor,” Lake Travis View, Page 4, July 2, 2009

Unfortunately, I found out why the Marco Alvarado did not put out a similar press release!

Keeping with Chris Wilson’s list of ‘cohort’ high schools, I have compiled a history of the yearly Newsweek rankings of the Lake Travis, Westlake and Westwood high schools:

Newsweek’s ranking of Westlake, Westwood and Lake Travis high schools in their annual list of the top 1,500 U.S. high schools.

(Source: Newsweek, “The Top of the Class, The complete list of the 1,500 top U.S. high schools”)

Wow, 1096 for the LTISD! Quite a drop for the “highly acclaimed” LTISD and no where near the ranking of Westlake or Westwood high schools.

Just how did this dramatic drop happen?

Wait a minute!

Didn’t Marco Alvarado, LTISD Minister of Disinformation, put out a press release on April 18, 2008 saying:

“Lake Travis High School makes significant jump in Newsweek’s Top Schools list

For the third year in a row, Lake Travis High School has been listed as one of Newsweek’s Top 1,300 schools in the country. This year, the campus jumped more than 200 spots to be listed at number 503—its highest ranking yet. …”
(The district has not yet removed their web page for this “News Release.” Let’s see how long it takes before it “just disappears.”)

Hey Marco, why haven’t you put out a press release about the dramatic drop that the LTISD suffered?

Marco, don’t you think that moving down from 603 to 1096 news worthy? Isn’t this especially so since Westwood and Westlake high schools were able to maintain their rankings?

Seems like we have more proof to back up Chris Wilson’s call for improvements in academic rigor.

Just what has the LTISD been doing with all that money that they have been throwing at the problem?

Lets compare the three school districts for each of these three high schools from a financial and taxation point of view:

(Source: Texas Education Agency)

Notes: ¹Spending Efficiency = Expenditures per Student ÷ Instructional Spending per Student

On a spending basis, the LTISD should be a good as the Eanes ISD, but all the rankings and benchmarks say otherwise.

Why then can’t the LTISD academic performance be as good as the Eanes ISD?

When it comes to “bang for the buck,” we see that others can and do excel.

What’s wrong with the LTISD?

Why do they think that more money will solve their problems?

Why can’t the LTISD manage their money as effectively as other districts?

We pay a LOT of money for mediocrity.

“More scholars needed at LTISD

To the editor:

I wanted to share some information with the Lake Travis Independent School District community regarding my comparison of the Lake Travis High School versus Westlake High School and Westwood High School performance in the most recent National Merit Scholarship Competition.

LTHS, a TEA Academically Acceptable school for 2007-08, produced four National Merit Finalists eight National Merit Commended students, and was announced by LTISD on March 23. Westlake High School, a TEA Exemplary school, produced 28 National Merit Finalists, 48 National Merit Commended students, and was announced by Eanes ISD on Feb. 12.

Westwood High School, a TEA Recognized school, produced 29 National Merit Finalists, 43 National Merit Commended students, and was announced by Round Rock ISD on March 5. Both Westlake and Westwood high schools have seven times as many National Merit Finalists as Lake Travis High School. Westlake has six times as many National Merit Commended students as Lake Travis High School and Westwood has five point three times as many National Merit Commended students as Lake Travis High School. Westlake and Westwood high schools . do not have seven, six or five times as many students as Lake Travis High School even though they are both 5A schools and Lake Travis High School is a 4A school.

Historically, Lake Travis High School students perform very poorly on the written skills portion of the PSAT test that determines the National Merit Finalist and Commended status.

Congratulations to all of the wonderful students that achieved the Finalist and Commended student status.

You are the cream of the crop amongst high school seniors.

This community should be demanding that it is time for Lake Travis High School to see much better results in the National Merit Competition in line with the schools down the road from us.

Chris Wilson
The Hills”

-Lake Travis View, June 18, 2009, Volume 24, Number 25

Good point Chris! But do these districts have a back-to-back championship football team?! I don’t think so. Let’s get our priorities straight now!

Obviously Chris has not read the Wikipedia entry for the Lake Travis High School which is filled mostly with information about the schools past athletic achievements and very little information about academics.

There is only paragraph in the LTHS Wikipedia page regarding academics and it is very amusing:

“Lake Travis High School classroom standards higher than many other high school, and, therefore, are more difficult. For a student to be in the top 20% academically generally requires having a class grade average over 100 while attending virtually all advanced placement (AP) classes. However, despite their apparent intellectual superiority, and the rigor of their elite classes, they can not manage to write a grammatically correct Wikipedia entry.“

Has Chris Wilson endangered herself with the “powers that be” within the district. Things like this won’t get her an invite to the next class of Leadership Lake Travis.

But sometimes, like the child in Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes,”  someone just has to tell the Emperor that he is naked.

We should read the rest of the Hans Christian Andersen’s great fairy tale (perhaps better categorized as a “satire”):

““But he has nothing on at all,” said a little child at last. “Good heavens! listen to the voice of an innocent child,” said the father, and one whispered to the other what the child had said. “But he has nothing on at all,” cried at last the whole people. That made a deep impression upon the emperor, for it seemed to him that they were right; but he thought to himself, “Now I must bear up to the end.” And the chamberlains walked with still greater dignity, as if they carried the train which did not exist.”

Note: The February 19, 2009 Austin American-Statesman article on this is no longer on the paper’s web site. You read the text of the article below:

“EDUCATION

Lake Travis High School coffee bar an early success

Growing number of high schools nationwide building cafeteria coffee bars.

By Molly Bloom
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Thursday, February 19, 2009

By 1 p.m., Lake Travis High School junior Erica Bonin was sipping her third Snickers-flavored Frapp from Main Street Java, the school’s in-house coffee bar.

Some days, she says, she’ll knock back four or five coffee-flavored shakes by the time the final bell rings.

“I hardly ever eat anything else,” Bonin said.

Some high schools in Texas and nationwide are building in-school coffee bars, enticed by the profits from the beverages, which are popular among teens, and by the premise that keeping coffee-drinking kids on campus will help them focus on their studies. Many of the ventures are a success, as measured by sales and student satisfaction, but some nutrition experts are questioning whether selling the often sugary caffeinated drinks in schools is good for students’ health.

Main Street Java opened in Lake Travis High’s newly renovated cafeteria at the start of the school year. Bastrop High School opened a coffee shop this school year, too, and Round Rock is planning to incorporate a student-operated coffee bar into its newest high school, planned to open in 2010.

Food service contractor Aramark has opened 15 in-school coffee shops nationwide since 2003, including three in the Dallas and Houston areas. Austin schools do not serve coffee to students, district spokeswoman Roxanne Evans said.

In Lake Travis, the inspiration for Main Street Java came from the sight of high school students strolling into morning classes with disposable coffee cups in hand, food and nutrition services director Barbara Galaway-Patrick said.

Lake Travis spent about $12,000 of the $2.9 million allotted for the high school cafeteria’s renovation to outfit the coffee shop with a stainless steel La Cimbali espresso machine, display cases for pastries, slick black counters and bar-height tables and stools, Galaway-Patrick said.

The investment has paid off, she said.

The coffee shop sells about $350-$500 a day in cappuccinos, lattes, organic teas, scones and other assorted goodies, accounting for about a sixth of the cafeteria’s total sales, Galaway-Patrick said. Students from the school’s business academy work in the cafe, which pays $8 to the academy’s activity fund for every hour students work.

The coffee shop’s top seller is the Snickers-flavored Frapp, a blended mixture of caramel, chocolate and hazelnut syrups, milk, a powdered dairy base, ice and, of course, a shot of espresso, all crowned with whipped cream and drizzled with more chocolate syrup.

A large Snickers Frapp, which is 20 ounces, has 402 calories, 12.5 grams of fat, 22 grams of sugar and about 60 milligrams of caffeine. By comparison, 20 ounces of Coca-Cola has about 243 calories, no fat, 65 grams of sugar and 58 milligrams of caffeine, according to the company. Also popular at the coffee shop are the cookie dough and cookies-and-cream Frapps. A large Frapp is $2.75, and a smaller 12-ounce Frapp is $2.15.

Teachers are usually the only customers for black coffee, Galaway-Patrick said.

District administrators thought about the merits of serving coffee to teenagers before deciding to open the coffee shop but figured that students were drinking coffee anyway, and an in-school coffee bar gives them a reason to be at school on time and gives them a safe place to socialize, Lake Travis High food and nutrition services manager LoraJeanne Blaker said.

Dr. Marcie Schneider, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ committee on nutrition, said the in-school coffee bar sounds like a bad idea.

Though it’s unclear whether caffeine negatively affects teenagers’ developing neurological systems, Schneider said that for teens, as for adults, caffeine can raise heart rates and blood pressure, act as a diuretic, give drinkers a sense of hyperawareness and increase motor skills.

Some doctors recommend that teenagers have no more than 21/2 to 4 milligrams of caffeine per kilogram a day, Schneider said. That works out to about two cups of coffee for a 100-pound freshman.

Teenagers are less inclined than adults to rein in the impulse to have just one more cup of coffee, despite the side effects, said Schneider, who has a medical practice in Greenwich, Conn., that focuses on adolescents.

“For kids, for teenagers, there’s no reason to have caffeine,” she said. “From my perspective, kids can be drinking water, milk and orange juice fortified with calcium. There’s nothing else they really need.”

Lake Travis High School covers healthy lifestyles in health and physical education classes and offers a variety of healthy food options in its cafeteria. It also offers free workshops on nutrition, exercise and other health topics for parents. Because the school doesn’t participate in the National School Lunch Program, it is not subject to state laws that limit beverages, except milk, to 30 grams of sugar or less per eight ounces. State law caps drink serving sizes in schools that participate in the National School Lunch Program to less than 12 ounces but does not limit caffeine content.

Lake Travis parents have the option of barring their children from using money in their cafeteria accounts to buy coffee shop items. Only one parent has instituted a Frapp block, Galaway-Patrick said.

mbloom@statesman.com; 445-3620″

- Molly Bloom, “Lake Travis High School coffee bar an early success,” Austin American-Statesman, February 19, 2009.

On March 13, 2009, the Austin American-Statesman published this correction:

“In a story about coffee bars in high schools that appeared on Page One on Feb. 19, a Lake Travis High School student who claimed to drink as many as five coffee-flavored shakes a day falsely identified herself as Erica Bonin. School officials said they could not confirm the identity of the student who did speak with the reporter. Attempts by the Statesman to reach the student or her parents by phone have been unsuccessful.”

What does a “coffee bar” have to do with public education?

Just who made the decision to allow this and better yet (follow the money), who is profiting from this?

A “coffee bar” must be one of those things that just goes along with an “indoor athletic facility,” AKA: Multipurpose Facility.

By the way, have you ever heard of any organization other than the football team having access to this facility?

Has the band ever used it?

Makes you wonder about the term “multipurpose.”

Another web site, National Center for Education Achievement, ranked all of the Lower Elementary Schools (K-2nd Grade), Upper Elementary Schools (3rd-5th Grade), Middle Schools and High Schools in Texas for 2008.

How did the LTISD fare compared to the rest schools of the state who made this ranking?

Lower Elementary Schools (K-2nd Grade) in ranking list: 481

LTISD schools making the list:

Higher Elementary Schools (3rd-5th Grade) in ranking list: 621

LTISD schools making the list:

Middle Schools in ranking list: 327

LTISD schools making the list:

High Schools in ranking list: 145

LTISD schools making the list:

1. Average Teacher Salary for each high school (Grades 9-12) in your district and/or jurisdiction.
2. Approximate Salary for each Head Football coach at every high school in your district and/or jurisdiction. (2008-09 if possible).
3. Approximate budget for football at every high school in your district and/or jurisdiction (2008-09 if possible).
4. If available. athletic travel budget in regards to football (2008-09 if possible).
5. Approximate budget for maintaining the football stadium. including construction of new stadiums and facilities. (2008-09 if possible)
6. Average Daily Enrollment for each high school (Grades 9-12) in your district and/or jurisdiction

Amazingly enough, Marco Alvarado rather than Susan Bohn answered Mr. Lyke on February 10, 2009:^TPIA

1. Average Teacher Salary for each high school (Grades 9-12) in your district and/or jurisdiction.

   Answer: $43,605.12

2. Approximate Salary for each Head Football coach at every high school in your district and/or jurisdiction. (2008-09 if possible).

   Answer: $108,978.10

3. Approximate budget for football at every high school in your district and/or jurisdiction (2008-09 if possible).

   Answer: Supplies: $25,358, Travel: $7,000

4. If available. athletic travel budget in regards to football (2008-09 if possible).

   Answer: $7,000

5. Approximate budget for maintaining the football stadium. including construction of new stadiums and facilities. (2008-09 if possible)

   Answer: $30,000

6. Average Daily Enrollment for each high school (Grades 9-12) in your district and/or jurisdiction.

   Answer: 1,811

Don’t ask the district for a copy of what they sent to Mr. Lyke or else Susan Bohn will ask the Attorney General for an opinion regarding it’s release.

Hey Susan, don’t you know that you have already released the informtion to Mr. Lyke? Doesn’t that make it public already?

It certainly has not been for the lack of material.

I have a lot of catching up to do.

Here is a small list of posts that I plan on uploading in the  very near future:

1. Did you know that Susan Bohn claims to be aware of the privacy provisions of FERPA, yet turns around to provide documents that would appear to violate FERPA? Not only that, but since we only pay her $130,000 per year, they still had to employ an outside law firm to help her out in this matter? Just why did Rocky hire her? It must be for her expertise in eminent domain matters? We will just have to see what the TEA and FERPA have to say about this latest blunder. Remember what the TEA said about Susan Tolles violation of student confidentiality?
   
2. Did you know that the OCR found the LTISD in violation again?!
3. Did you know that Rocky got another pay raise! Even after saying that he was going to make the LTISD “the most exemplary school district in Texas!” The Austin American Statesman even made comments on Rocky’s outrageous “compensation.”
4. Did you know that the LTISD is trying to shore up their image with television commercials?
5. Did you know that your taxes went up again? Do you think that the “brain trust” is going to ask for a vote on raising our taxes in May? Did you ever wonder what Mayo thinks about tax increases in light of the fact that he owes Travis County and the LTISD so much in property taxes?
6. Did you know that I did not spend my 36 hours of time for TPIA requests this year? Did you know that once again, Susan Bohn messed up and can’t seem to keep an accurate count of time. Imagine that!
7. Just what is the growth rate in our school district. Looking at some real estate sales data, we can see some noticeable decreases this year. Wonder if the “brain trust” is going to ignore the data and ask all of us, except Mayo,  to pay more taxes for the burgeoning student population?

These and other articles coming very soon.

“To make the final list and be eligible for further consideration, a campus has to qualify as both high value-added and high performing. Combining the value-added and the high performing lists, we have 51 candidates.” (Page 19, Best Practices in Math and Science in Texas Public High Schools)

Not really a big suprise that the LTISD was not included since they failed to have a high “value-added and high performing high school campus.”

Why didn’t the LTISD make this list?

If the LTISD believes that they are so wronged by the label “academically acceptable,” you think that they would obtain proof to the contrary, such as being included on this list?

No, the LTISD goes about telling you about how wonderful the district is, but without reference to any reality based metrics generated by someone other than the LTISD.

I guess that this list makes 51 fewer candidates in which the LTISD has to choose from in their list of “cohort” distircts.

It is not hard for the the LTISD to be so “super duper” when they are grading their own paper, but when they are compared with real metrics, well …

Rocky, remember that previous school district you allegedly worked for, Spring ISD?

The Spring ISD has a school listed as a “value-added and high performing high school campus” in this report.

Hey Rocky and the rest of the “Team of Eight,” how do your mertrics account for not making this list?

Doesn’t the LTISD have some sort of “super duper special science” program in the district?

Perhaps a remedial course in “Reality 101″ would be good trainging for Rocky and the Board?

Perhaps Rocky would do well to read the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s report on “Math and Schience Reform.”

Here are some facts from the article which can also be accessed on-line:

The data was compiled in collaboration with schoolmatters.com.

An extensive document details the methodology used to determine that the best high schools. Certainly the best I have seen regarding the matter.

Oh no, scientifically based metrics! Just what the LTISD says that they are striving to use, or so they say.

According to the article (Page 55), Texas has 1,815 high schools and 634 were eligible for ranking. Of the 634 eligible schools, 162 were awarded the “Bronze” or better rating and of these 162 Texas high schools, 29 were recognized as “Silver” or “Gold.”

This means that the LTISD did not make the top 162 of 1,815 schools (10%)!

US News and World Reports includes a “side line” story of the Hidalgo High School. The article: “Reaching for the Dream, On the border of Texas and Mexico, an exceptional school” tells of an “exceptional” high school despite their situation.

Rocky and the rest of the “Team of Eight:” if Hidalgo can do it, why can’t you? You certainly have the resources at your disposal and yet you spend an inordinate amount of time seeking metrics which will bolster your own narcissistic view.

How does Rocky and the rest of the “Team of Eight” reconcile their rendition or as I like to say the “Rocky Facts” regarding against reports such as those from US News and World Reports?

Rocky, you had better wind up Marco and send him out to spin some more “Rocky Facts” about how well things are going and your overwhelming support. I wonder if the captain of the Titanic told similar “facts” as his ship was sinking too?

The Texas Zero Tolerance web site lists the LTISD as on its Reported Cases of Disciplinary Policy Abuse in Individual Texas Independent School Districts web page.

“Texas Zero Tolerance is a Texas-wide group dedicated to reform of disciplinary codes within public education. We adamantly support the concept of safe schools and the need for a strong and proactive discipline policy to assure safety in our schools. But the current discipline system in Texas schools is in need for a drastic overhaul.”*

Someone reported the LTISD’s disciplinary policy abuse in “Marker incident results in 9-weeks in DAEP”.

* Texas Zero Tolerance (www.texaszerotolerance.com)

• Where exactly did the LTISD obtain their data from the TEA?
• When did the LTISD obtain their data from the TEA?

As of November 2, 2007, the TEA web site for Standard Reports most current Financial Reports are from 2005-2006, and the data has not been updated since March 22, 2007. In addition, the TEA Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) web page says that “The AEIS Reports for 2006-07 will be online near the end of November 2007.”

• So, LTISD, where did these numbers come from?

Again, without a solid source for verification, any data presented by the LTISD should be treated with a great deal of skepticism.

Here is a picture of the chart from the LTISD posting of their August 27, 2007 BoardBook comparing LTISD spending per student to that of other select districts and the state average. (Also available in Acrobat (PDF) format):

Another issue is that the chart shows only “General Fund” expenditures per student. TEA data gives two sets of expenditures per student, “General Fund” and “All Funds.” The “All Funds” number is the greater of the two “expenditures.” (See this example page of the LTISD from the latest data available on the TEA web site: 2005-2006).

So, let’s apply some more appropriate “benchmarks” to the TEA expenditure data. I compared the LTISD to all of the “recognized” school districts of comparable size and created some graphs for you, the tax payer and parent to review.

If it were not for the fact that the TEA rated them as “recognized” rather than “academically acceptable” I would think that they would be considered “cohort” districts, but as it stands they certainly would qualify as “lighthouse districts.”

(See note below for the source of the data and the constraints used to define “comparable size.”):

Why does the LTISD spend more per student than these comparable sized “Recognized” districts and still only achieve a rating of “Academically Acceptable?”

The numbers tend to show that throwing more money at the problem is not the solution. We should remember that especially when the LTISD comes out begging for more bond money.

Data Sources and Constraints:

1. All financial data used is from the TEA web site, and can be obtained from the “2005-2006 Financial Budget Reports web page.”
2. All expenditures were Total Expenditures from All Funds Per Student as given from by the TEA “2005-2006 Financial Budget Reports web page.”
3. All TEA ratings were obtained from the TEA web site, and can be obtained from the “2007 Accountability Ratings web page.“
4. The TEA rated 217 districts as “Recognized” during the 2006-2007 school year, and of those:
   • 204 had enrollments of between 15-3544 students
   • 9 with enrollments of between 3884-7216 students
   • 4 districts with enrollments of between 9909-35378.

   I chose those districts closest to the LTISD enrollment of 5563 students to make comparison (3884-7216).

Hey, the LTISD paid for the review and the report which was completed in April 2007 but they were not so anxious to share this with us, the parents and tax payers of the district.

I recently obtained a copy and will share it with you.

After I requested a copy through the TPIA, Becky Burnett said that she considered the document something that should be shared with everyone. She also said that she will provide a copy to anyone who asks without the need for a TPIA request.

Thank you Becky for your help in letting the parents and tax payers of the LTISD know more about the district.

The 89 page document, “BEST PRACTICE REVIEW: Least Restrictive Environment & Special Education Services,” was created as a result of a district wide analysis by Dr. Richard Villa and James Chapple.

This report does not make Rocky look good at all.

After reading this, you really do have to ask yourself: “Just what does Rocky do for all that money that the district pays him?”

Obviously, he does not get paid enough, he even gets paid by outside entities to supplement his meager salary.

Perhaps this report is just one of the reasons that “Loosey Goosey” was exiled to the Community Programs Department?

After reading this report, you can understand a little more about why the LTISD is ranked “academically acceptable.”

Isn’t Rocky responsible for this?

I remember hearing the words “taking responsibility” during a recent Board Workshop.

Isn’t Rocky the “educational leader and chief executive officer of the District. Education Code 11.201(a)?” (LTISD Board Policy BJA(LEGAL)) Isn’t he responsible (LTISD Board Policy BJA(LOCAL)) to “Ensure that goals and objectives form the basis of curricular decision making and instruction and communicate expectations for high achievement.”

Don’t we as parents and tax payers deserve better than this?!

Not with our current management and a Board who is busy looking for “cohort districts” and “lighthouse districts” with which to compare themselves. Shouldn’t they concentrate on fulfilling just one of their self mandated goals: “Provide world-class curriculum and educational opportunities for all students?”

This report has a lot to say about many issues, some of which I will highlight here:

“It is commendable that the District provides yearly training in confidentiality and that the staff are required to sign confidentiality oaths. And yet, confidentiality and student dignity were not maintained. Numerous personnel spoke to the reviewers about students in the presence of other staff and the students and their peers. On occasion students were discussed in the third person while they were sitting and able to hear the comments being made about them.” (Page 18 and 38) Does this sound familiar?

“There was little data indicating that purposeful instructional planning, including daily and long-range lesson planning, was occurring.” (Page 22)

“In general, there was little bell-to-bell instruction occurring.” (Page 22)

“The implementation of the inclusive educational program and services in Lake Travis Independent School District has not kept pace with current and emerging exemplary practices. Several aspects of the inclusive education services are reflective of “best practices” from twenty or more years ago. Despite previous training opportunities, there was little evidence of differentiation, curriculum compacting, flexible grouping, or tiered assignments, in the more than 65 instructional settings that were observed.” (Page 51)

“There was little evidence of purposeful instructional planning, including daily and long-range lesson planning. Lesson planning has many benefits. It serves as a useful blueprint or guideline for the classroom teacher and allows for purposeful planning to meet diverse learning needs (Wood. 2002).” (Page 51)

“There was a limited use of technology in the classrooms observed.” (Page 51)

“Student interviews reveled that hands-on lab experiences in high school biology classes were minimal. One student indicated that his class had only been to the lab one time all year and that during that lesson students were instructed not to touch anything in the lab.” (Page 51)

“The district’s implementation of community-based and prevocational training for students with significant disabilities and clustering of students with disabilities in only some general education classes to receive special education services are not consistent with “the state of the art”; namely, the design and delivery of specialized instruction and related services in inclusive settings.” (Page 52)

“In the vast majority of classes observed, instructors did not utilize the time available by assuring bell-to-bell instruction. We noticed students on cell phones, listening to I-Pods, wandering the hallways, and playing cards during instructional time. One teacher told us when we entered her classroom and saw students playing cards, that she never used the last ten minutes of class for instruction. In a 175-day school year, that is 1,750 minutes (over 20 hours) of instruction that is denied to these learners”. (Page 53)

“There was little evidence of academic rigor. Academic rigor is teaching, learning, and assessment that promotes student growth in knowledge of the subject area and the ability to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate critically the content under study.” (Page 53)

“There was little evidence that data from accountability measures is used to modify or deliver appropriate instruction.” (Page 54)

“There does not appear to be a clear and shared understanding of LRE mandates.” (Page 55)

Just what is a “lighthouse district?”

After attending the September 6, 2007 Board Workshop I heard these terms being used ad nauseam.

It seems that the Administration is really troubled by their second consecutive “academically acceptable” rating. The LTISD is spending inordinate amounts of time in pursuit of alternative metrics in their self-conceited attempts to bolster their already tarnished reputation.

Did you know that the state assessments are “unfair” and that it reduces everyone to the “least common denominator?” These were among the choice idioms used by our Board.

Why not face the facts and realize that the Administration led by Rocky has failed the district’s students, parents and let’s not forget the tax payers who bank roll their quest in search”cohort schools” and “lighthouse districts.”

Can you believe this? Of course you can since they just won’t own up to their own lack of integrity and take responsibility for their failures.

More to follow as I transcribe the videos so as to properly document just who said what.

Let’s see if they can actually turn the LTISD around and improve our state accountability rating.

Makes you wonder why they did not go to these measures last year?

Just what was Rocky doing besides getting paid more money. Look what his pay raise did for the district’s accountability rating!