Today we get to hear from the former Special Education Director for District 158 in person. Here is the statement Cheryl Kalkirtz has released:

“When I applied for the Director of Special Services position originally, my credentials matched the district’s job description that was verbally changed by administration on February 1st, 2010. That same job description and title were reiterated in an e-mail on November 16th, 2009 from the Human Resource Director to me.  Duties for special education administrators have changed by the district’s cabinet throughout this entire school year, even causing one assistant director to resign and my needing to step in and cover his job additionally.

“I am disappointed with the entire process, with not having opportunities for board members to know the special education administration’s concerns, but by reading their comments in community blogs or having selective information shared to them by the district’s cabinet.

“As an experienced district level administrator who was selected by a hiring committee for District 158 among a pool of candidates, I am proud that I have represented the ISBE Parent Rights for Students with Disabilities, also representing fiscal procedures to the best of my ability, and for participating with staff through district wide professional development opportunities, as the district moves forward to develop Response to Intervention Initiatives.

“The Parent Advisory Committee has been a rewarding opportunity and I have had the pleasure of getting to know the staff and students.

“I wish the district’s learning community well, as I have selected to not remain at District 158.”

Over the weekend while our family was in the Wisconsin Dells (son and buddy in water park, father reading novels, wife visiting with family), the following comment on this article about Cheryl Kalkirtz’ resignation letter arrived.

I thought it might interest more people than those who take the time to go all the way back to the article to check on new comments.

It might even help District 158 reply to a recent Freedom of Information request I filed.

Don Drzal and Kim Skaja want everyone to believe that what they and Burkey have done is honest and true, and everything Cal and Cheryl have said is fabricated to make them look bad. They claim parents who believe anything other than what comes from the district are stupidly following garbage.

Lets take it one step at a time to see what seems most reasonable.

#1

A. Kim, Don, and Burkey sate that Cheryl lied on her resume by claiming she had an endorsement she didn’t really have.

or

B. An entire room of people including one board member and two parents were there when she told Smith that her endorsement was pending.

#2

A. Cheryl had to leave her position, because the district is required by law to have special education run by someone with the correct endorsement. Having her leave her position was legally required.

or

B. This was just an excuse to get rid of Cheryl for refusing to go along with unethical requests made by Burkey such as refusing to reallocate special ed grant money to other areas. Cheryl wasn’t required to hold this endorsement just as the previous director wasn’t. There isn’t a legal reason for the head of special ed to carry the endorsement in question in district 158 just as confirmed by the State Board of Education.  [See this article, as well.]

#3

A. Kim, Martin administrator (opinions shared on Huntley Neighbors with a pseudo-name) say it is impossible for parents to know of the negative information found in Alward’s personnel file, because it does not exist. She has been an outstanding employee who is respected by her peers and superiors.

or

B. The information that has been seen, being identical to that found Alward’s personnel file is legitimate. Including, but not limited to identifying her falsifying gas mileage, changing curriculum without approval, and non-collaborative decision making.

#4

A. Burkey told the truth when he stated that Cheryl’s attorney had not been in contact with the district, and any documentation stating otherwise is fake. He did not lie in regard to the FOIA, because if he did lie it would be grounds for dismissal of his position. Because he did not lie, that is not an issue.

or

B. The first contact made by Cahill and Associates on Feb 2, addressed to Dr. Burkey, faxed to his fax number and transmission of receipt attached is valid. So are the other letters and responding correspondence from Mr. Anthony Ficarelli, 158 attorney, dated Feb 3 and Feb 9 as well as phone consultation on Feb 18, and Burkey did lie when he stated otherwise. Burkey should be investigated and pending proof of the above statements, he should be terminated from his position.

#5

A. Cheryl didn’t turn in a letter of resignation on January 11, and any letter with that date was written after her termination on Feb 1.

or

B. Cheryl handed out 5 copies of her resignation letter to various employees. Several of those copies were shared other employees after January 11, but prior to Feb 1. Employees heard Burkey discuss the copies “original” letter of resignation, and witnessed his hostility at being unable to find it. Because of this original letter or resignation, Terry Awrey met with Cheryl on January 22 in a collaborative meeting to develop a plan on how to address these issues as part their agreement to try to work out the underlying reasons that forced her to write her letter of resignation in the first place. The 3 pages of bullet points that were discussed at this meeting are available and have been viewed.

#6

A. Teachers are happy with administration, they aren’t overworked or under supported. They haven’t been threatened into keeping quiet about any issues, because they feel comfortable speaking with their administration. Parents have bullied the special ed department and have forced them to quit.

or

B. Teachers and other employees have contacted numerous parents, thanking them for helping them. They have stated that they aren’t allowed to discuss any of their concerns for fear of punishment. Administration, teachers and therapists have contacted parents, explaining how they were bullied to keep quiet about the district breaking the law by not meeting IEP minutes and excessive workloads. Some were forced to quit due to lack of support by district administration. They left 158 taking jobs in other districts, because 158 forced them to put money over the needs of the children of district 158.

#7

A. The district has lost so many members of the special ed department, because the parents bullied them into quitting. Others left because the district underpays, and they found more lucrative positions in other districts.

or

B. The employees left because they realized they would never be able to do their jobs properly in 158. As had as they tried to make the district change, it became apparent that it never would. They left to go to districts where they could make a difference. Despite confidentiality agreements, they have shared a lot of information about what they think is wrong with the district and who is really calling the shots in 158.

#8

A. The district has been honest about everything. Parents and Cal Skinner have worked hard, falsifying documents, placing items in personnel files, spreading conspiracy theories, and managed to get employees to support them in this lie for no reason other than to discredit the district for their own twisted agenda.

or

B. Burkey lied, cheated, and deceived the children, school board members, and district 158 teachers and parents in an attempt to cover up his unethical behavior. The 158 BOE follow the 158 administration blindly, refusing to investigate any of the claims by parents. They have refused to even consider the evidence that was delivered to their doors prior to agreeing to the separation agreement between the district and 158. They had almost all of the evidence to prove Burkey lied, but refused to even consider crossing him. All documents are not only legitimate but provable, and none of the board members have admitted to even seeing it.

Whose been deceived? It seems obvious to anyone who is outside of the school board’s circle.

The headline is from the third sentence of a January 7th letter of recommendation written by Terry Awrey.

He was Cheryl Kalkirtz’ boss while she was employed at Huntley District 158.

The entire letter is below.

On January 11th, Kalkirtz submitted a letter of resignation offering to end her employment on June 30th at the end of her employment contract.

On February 1st, Kalkirtz departed Huntley under circumstances one could describe as

• “unusual,”
• “mysterious” or
• “unexplained by the district,”

your choice of words or phrases.

Could it be a majority on the board of education and likely Supt. John Burkey didn’t think having “a proven professional” who “has earned the respect of the Administrative Team” was reason enough to keep Kalkirtz employed through the first year of her contract?

Or was something else at work?

What other on-the-job-performance-related qualities did Kalkirtz boss praise her for?

If you read the letter below (click to enlarge), you will see Associate Superintendent Awrey writing:

“I find her to be highly intelligent, motivated and committed
to the educational success of each and every child.”

This hardly seems like a list of reasons for Kalkirtz to be no longer employed.

Did Awrey have any reservations about Kalkirtz?

It certainly doesn’t seem so from what he wrote:

“I recommend Mrs. Kalkirtz without reservation.”

Of course, getting praised by the number two guy in an organization does have its limitations.  The basic  one is that one is not in charge.

So who decided that Kalkirtz needed to no longer be employed as a proven, well respected Huntley professional who is highly intelligent, motivated and committed to the educational success of each and every child?

Huntley principals and other administrators may take note how you, too, could be highly praised one day and be thought of apparently very differently soon thereafter.

The phrase “we would never do something like this” takes on a different meaning when you look at in the context of Cheryl Kalkirtz employment.

So far, no good-reason explanation has been advanced for why board members and Supt. Burkey didn’t allow Kalkirtz to finish her contract, which ended until June 30th.

Huntley has done so in the past for other next step higher up administrators.

What happened can probably be found filed in a locked file cabinet in the office of Lauren Smith, Director of Human Resources under “Employee Morale – Bad.”

How can you have so many fair-minded, public-spirited, caring, well-meaning individuals as top administrators and board members and have this happen?

Maybe someone can answer that question.

Join Huntley School District 158–where you can be exceptional administrator or employee one week and no-longer-employed a few weeks later.

Remember.

It’s all for the children.

The original opening sentence of yesterday’s Daily Herald’s article on former Special Education Director Cheryl Kalkirtz read,

“Recently released documents show a former special education director in Huntley Unit District 158 overstated her qualifications on her job application.”

For some reason, it changed to

“Documents obtained recently by the Daily Herald paint a contradictory picture of what transpired when a former special education director in Huntley Unit District 158 applied for her job last year.”

You might think this is the real reason behind Kalkirtz’ leaving Huntley School District 158.

Au contraire.

There is far more to it than an employment application, which Kalkirtz may not have personally filled out.

Apparently reporter Jameel Naqvi knows about Cheryl Kalkirtz’ resignation on January 11th, but you can’t tell it from the Daily Herald headline (which editors, not reporters usually write).  Here’s the original headline:

Ex-Huntley Dist. 158 special ed. chief pumped up job application

Here’s the revision:

Question Ex-Huntley Dist. 158 special ed. chief pump up job application?

What Supt. Burkey did comment on in the article relative to Kalkirtz’ resignation was,

“Burkey said the brief statement was the only letter Kalkirtz submitted.” (emphasis added)

If so, I wonder about this letter, which McHenry County Blog has obtained a while back:

It’s addressed to Superintendent John Burkey.

And to school board members.

Could it be that Burkey doesn’t read letters of resignation from top administrators?

Or doesn’t remember?

We know several board members received copies of Kalkirtz’ January letter of resignation, weeks after she had departed.  They were hand delivered to board member’s homes.

Apparently Burkey didn’t pass along Kalkirtz’ resignation letter, addressed also to board members, when Kalkirtz submitted it on January 11th.

If I were on a school board, I’d certainly want to see a letter like this.

Especially with all the controversy about Special Ed.

Below is Kalkirtz’ January 11th letter of resignation with print large enough print to read.

Burkey apparently begged Kalkirtz to stay with the district after she first met with Associate Superintendent Terry Awrey.

They two met with Supt. Burkey to discuss Kalkirtz’ resignation.

After imploring her to stay, Kalkirtz agreed.

A few weeks went by.

Days after Burkey got a new three-year employment contract approved by the board, Burkey apparently decided to have Kalkirtz leave abruptly, rather than her continue through the school year, as she proposed in her January 11th resignation letter.

It’s an interesting way to treat a professional who resigns and commits to finishing out the school year.

When you read the original letter, the Daily Herald’s headline comes across as quite a smear job on Kalkirtz.

Will the Daily Herald take Burkey to task for being less than truthful when he said there was only one resignation letter when there were two?

We’ll see.

The Daily Herald seems to be making a big issue about whether Kalkirtz was truthful.

Will they now hold Burkey to a lower standard?

Or ask why Burkey apparently didn’t check out Kalkirtz’ credentials before hiring her?

Maybe Burkey did and thought that, if she were going to be receiving her endorsement soon, then that would be okay, as Burkey did with the Assistant Special Ed Directors who also were required by state law to have their endorsements when they took their jobs.

It looks as if Burkey recommended several people for jobs that required endorsements, got the board to approve them and, then, after Kalkirtz submitted her January resignation letter, singled her out.

After all, none of the people running Special Ed in any school district that belongs to SEDOM, the Special Education District of McHenry County, needs to have a Special Ed Director certification, because the SEDOM Director Kathy Wilhoit’s endorsement is sufficient.

If this isn’t what happened, Burkey can set the record straight the same time he admits there was a previous resignation letter.

When you read Kalkirtz’ original resignation letter below you can understand why Burkey might want to say the letter never existed.

You might also understand how it came about Kalkirtz departed Huntley.

There’s one thing administrators and board members should know about confidentiality clauses; they don’t apply to when the documents are already beyond someone’s control.

Lots of people with the district talked about Kalkirtz resigning when it happened on January 11th.  The grapevine gushed out news about it.

People outside of board members and administrators not only had a copy of Kalkirtz’ January 11th resignation letter, but other documents as well prior to any agreement being entered into between Kalkirtz and the district.

Below is the text of the January 11, 2010, resignation letter from Cheryl Kalkirtz:

January 11th, 2010

Consolidated School District 158
Board of Education Members
Dr. John Burkey, Superintendent
650 Academic Drive
Algonquin, IL 60102

I am providing you with this letter of resignation, upon the completion of my contract for the 2009-2010 school years, for your approval as I have selected to look for other employment at this time. I would like to cite some particular examples for my decision to not stay with the district, also offering artifacts, correspondence or concrete examples for my departure, as an experienced administrator who has persevered at a district with many changes or dis structure that was placed before her.

The bullet points as below, generally describe my reasons for not choosing to remain at District #158 next year:

• The administrative design for the Office of Special Services from day one has required a different structure, as experienced cabinet members could have prevented so much change, and even one assistant director’s resignation during this school year, as that administrator has still not been replaced.
• I started the school year, needing to rapport build with a new office staff, who I was encouraged not to trust, causing disharmony in our immediate office setting. Still, we grew as a family, office staff are extremely dedicated and loyal, and I have observed trustworthiness and professionalism.
• I would mentor 3 new assistant directors to oversee the district’s special education populations, with a disproportionate structure for supervision responsibilities. The cabinet has heard my ongoing concerns regarding themes of our office and has not always included me with problem-solving strategies.
• I have represented reports, to the best of my ability, with other cabinet members either changing reports on the fly or have been asked to change reports sporadically, without ensuring accuracy in the completion of reports that I would need to represent formally.
• Communications to my superiors, verbally or via e-mail, have not always been acknowledged, as a new administrator to the district, regarding decision-making for my department.
• I was unable to participate in staff development, or have a leadership role for Special Services staff to have Institute Day opportunities to meet throughout the year, as past practices periodically allowed for this. I was not even formally introduced to the district by my superiors at the district’s opening Institute Day, and neither was my new administrative team from the get go.
• Fiscal data has not been collaborative.
• Curriculum and assessments for special needs students have been authoritarian style versus collaborative, and I have found that the Curriculum Director has required my providing her with reports about curriculum and criteria for establishing curriculum for the near 1,400 students who we represent, versus recommending curriculum according to her expertise and background or being advised to adopt programs that may or may not be successful for our students, due to former animosity between herself and my predecessor.
• Caseloads and workloads for staff have been an ongoing struggle, as workloads for Special Education Staff became a legal requirement last spring into this fall with the state board of education, with my coming onboard to a new district. This fact has been a thorn in the office of Special Services throughout the entire year and relationship building has been limited during an average work day, as my administrative team has been limited for addressing many of the workload concerns. Finally, this winter, the district is establishing committees to follow through with workloads, represented by the Human Resource Office, respectfully.
• District wide initiatives, such as RTI that leads to special education eligibility, PBIS, action-planning, the District’s first Parent Advisory Committee for Special Education, managing data with different fiscal databases, and strengthening special education compliance without an IEP database, has been a difficult and unique process, with a redeveloped administrative Special Services Team and a strong need for more clerical support, when compared to the other offices in our district. Morale has been an ongoing concern, additionally. All of the points listed are important to me, as how I am publicly perceived as a public school administrator.

As I have touched upon several concerning areas, as listed, please know that my original enthusiasm and intended dedication has always remained sincere and proactive, amidst the many changes placed before my office and programs.

To turn so many known obstacles around in such a short period of time, also with directives from my superiors to change how we function as an office with so much frequency or lack of communication, administrative guidance has been unclear, limited toward me for opportunities to understand the direction of how leadership wants me to interchange with understanding future designs or new directions for the district via long term goals.

In conclusion, my predecessor, from what I have heard, experienced all of these concerns and articulated these similarities to her superiors during her tenure with the district.

Respectfully, I will miss the collaborations and relationships that I have developed through our district and our Special Education cooperative and I hope that the district learns from an experienced district level administrator who tried to positively persevere at a district that needs to reconsider their foundation for professional learning communities for all of their stakeholders.

Here is the February 1, 2010, resignation from Huntley School District 158′s Special Education Director Cheryl Kalkirtz.

It is short and to the point:

I, Cheryl Kalkirtz, resign from CSD158 immediately.

The interview process for hiring a new Special Ed Director in Huntley District 158 included parents. They got to interview the final three candidates. This was after administrators conducted initial interviews, checked out candidates’ credentials and recommended three final candidates.

Lauren Smith, Chief Human Resources Officer, emailed parents who were in on the interviewing, the document at the bottom of this article.

As you can see to the left, the District represented to parents that Cheryl Kalkirtz already had her endorsement for Special Education Director.

This was the administration’s document and the district’s representation.

There was no footnote of “pending,” “applied for” or “based on applicant’s application.”  (See bottom of this article for the all the information supplied parents.)

Administrators were telling parents before hiring Kalkirtz that Kalkirtz had the Director endorsement.

Karen Aylward apparently also made such a representation to parents for herself at the August Parent Advisory Committee meeting.

What is more interesting is how the job description that was used to hire for the position omitted any requirement for an endorsement for Special Ed Director.

Reprinted below  is the job description that was used last year.

You have to wonder

• Why parents were told in writing that Kalkirtz had her endorsement
• Administrators apparently omitted the requirement from the Director job description.
• Why Supt. Burkey and top administrators thought it was acceptable to show parents that Aylward had a Director’s endorsement when it turns out she doesn’t.

Meanwhile knowing this, Burkey is quoted in the Daily Herald today,

“The director of special education does have to have the director endorsement,” Burkey said. “We would only hire someone if we believed they had those qualifications.”

Really?

Shouldn’t the law be quoted correctly in a newspaper?

You can go to the applicable state law

ISBE 23 ILLINOIS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 25.300 SUBTITLE A SUBCHAPTER b SUBPART E: REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CERTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPERVISORY STAFF

and read

g) Nothing in this Section is intended to preclude the issuance of a provisional certificate under Section 21-10 of the School Code.

(Source: Amended at 34 Ill. Reg. 1582, effective January 12, 2010.)

So when the Daily Herald quotes in a February 18th article,

“”The district cannot lawfully employ someone in this position who does not have this certificate,” state board spokeswoman Mary Fergus said.”

Fergus apparently forgets about provisional certificates.

The newspaper could have been fairer to Kalkirtz and its readers by pointing this out.

The allowance of a provisional certificate could hardly be more plain.

When she was selected last year, administrators and parents thought Kalkirtz was the best overall candidate and the board gave her a one year contract. They hired her.

Mere mortals cannot put themselves into Supt. Burkey’s mind, of course.

We do know that District 158 told parents that Kalkirtz had the endorsement in question and we know that there is an exception under the law for a “provisional certificate.”

And we know that the requirement for the “endorsement,” now being trotted out as the reason Kalkirtz is no longer with the district, was not important enough to include in the job description when she was hired.

We do not, however, know the motivations for Kalkirtz’ leaving the district.

Neither do we know the motivations for Burkey’s current behavior.

Maybe she was getting too close to the parents’ negative point of view of the Huntley School District’s Special Education services.

I had heard that she submitted a resignation letter which Burkey refused to accept. That was two weeks before she left. Maybe she was fed up with the lack of support from the administration.

By the way, Assistant Directors also have to have their Director’s endorsement under the same law:

“Section 25.365 Director of Special Education.  This endorsement shall be required for directors and assistant directors of special education beginning July 1, 2005.”

This is at least the second year that Assistant Director Aylward doesn’t have this endorsement as an Assistant Director.

For some reason, the Daily Herald reporter did not mention the exception in the law or the other documents in this article.

It would have been nice if the article had included

• a more complete picture of the applicable law,
• how Huntley made an exception for Kalkirtz and is
• is now making an exception for Aylward, not to mention
• what went on when Kalkirtz was hired.

Burkey appears to be treating former Special Ed Director Kalkirtz and eventually-to-be Interim Special Ed Director Aylward very differently when it comes to not having a Director’s endorsement.

One can only wonder.

= = = = =
Qualifications of three candidates for Special Ed Director emailed to parents before last year’s selection of Cheryl Kalkirtz:

Candidate #1

Positions Held

• Social Worker
• Assistant Principal
• Principal
• Experiences in both K-12 Districts and Special Education Organization

Certifications

• General Administrative
• Director of Special Education
• School Service Personnel – Social Work
• Non-violent Crisis Intervention

Candidate was responsible for the introduction and implementation of informal reading and spelling assessments for baseline instructional planning and progress monitoring of students. Other strengths/achievements include the introduction of scope and sequence documentation for grades K-12, integration of PBIS, worked on curriculum committees, participation on Transdisciplinary [SIC] Special Education/Regular Education initiative team, and the recruitment of related service personnel (speech pathologist, social workers, psychologist, and physical/occupational therapist), and on-going professional development.

Basic experience includes social work, compliance, staff evaluation, professional development and budget responsibilities.

17 years experience in the field of education, more specifically in relation to special education. Highly-qualified, candidate has earned an M.S.W. degree from University of Illinois at Chicago and a bachelor’s degree from the University of Wisconsin. Administrative degree from Northeastern Illinois University.

Languages – French (Polite)

Candidate #2

Positions Held

• Teacher
• Principal
• Coordinator of Special Services
• Special Education Director

Certifications

• Teaching 09/10
• General Administrative
• Director of Special Education

Strengths include implementing district run special education programs addressing all levels of disabilities. Other strengths/achievements include the development curriculum, implemented regular education teams for pre-referrals, the recruitment of related service personnel (speech pathologist, social workers, psychologist, and physical/occupational therapist), and on-going professional development. Developed an active parent advisory organization.

Basic experience includes design of service delivery and curriculum, grant writing and maintenance, compliance, staff evaluation, special education identification process (from pre-identification to IEP) and budget responsibilities.

Over 20 years experience in the field of education, more specifically in relation to special education. Highly-qualified, candidate has earned an M.S.E.D. degree from Northern Illinois University and a bachelor’s degree from the Drake University.

Candidate #3

Positions Held

• Teacher
• Parent Advocate (official position assisting families during IEP conferences)
• Special Education Consultant
• Principal
• Coordinator of Special Services
• Special Education Director

Certifications

• Teaching 09/10
• General Administrative
• Director of Special Education

Strengths include educational leader for school wide curriculum. Candidate has had responsibility for the management of education and operations of educational facility and the implementation of IEP and Medicare software and management. Other strengths/achievements include the development, team, and development of RtI in multiple schools, development curriculum, providing parent support through the experience of parent advocate and special ed consultant, the recruitment of related service personnel (speech pathologist, social workers, psychologist, and physical/occupational therapist), and on-going professional development.

Basic experience includes service delivery and coordination of Special education, ESL, Gifted, TPI, and ESY. Grant writing and maintenance for IDEIA, extracurricular and community based programs, compliance, professional development, parent and community partnerships, staff evaluation, special education identification process (from pre-identification to IEP) and budget responsibilities.

Over 15 years experience in the field of education, more specifically in relation to special education. Highly-qualified, candidate has earned masters degree from DePaul University and a bachelor’s degree from the Northeastern University.

Literate in Spanish

NCLB Highly Qualified in 23 subject areas

Last Thursday night the Huntley School District’s Parents Special Education Advisory Committee met.

It was under the shadow of Huntley’s Special Education Director’s Cheryl Kalkirtz’ recent unexplained parting of the ways with District 158.

Now, the district has its 3rd (albeit interim) Director in seven months, Karen Aylward.

Although Special Ed parents invest a lot of time communicating with special ed administrators, there was no explanation of Kalkritz’ absence from the man she reports to, Associate Superintendent Terry Awrey, who attended the meeting.

“Our resolve to inspire, challenge and empower has never been stronger,” he told those gathered.

The meeting was evidently something for the administrators to “get through,” as more than one mentioned goal of ending it by 7:30 so they could get home.

One parent specifically asked,

“What’s the rush to get out of here at 7:30?”

She then said,

“We’re here, you’re here.”

Parents started asking polite questions after Aylward introduced herself as the Special Ed Director pending board approval. She repeated it three times in two brief paragraphs as if the roomful of staff and parents were unaware. Aylward when asked, confirmed she did not have an endorsement for Special Education Director.

Aylward now makes $65,383.93 as Assistant Director of Special Education for working 215 days. I haven’t figured out how much her salary will increase in the new interim directorship position.

At the meeting, a parent asked about accounting for the (Federal Stimulus) ARRA funds.  Parents bristled when Aylward pronounced,

“All of that can be FOIA’d.”

Aylward said,

“My goal is to spend it the way it is supposed to.”

A parent in the audience then asked,

“Isn’t it your duty?

Parents started asking polite questions after Aylward introduced herself as the new Special Ed Director, pending board approval. She repeated it three times in two brief paragraphs as if the roomful of staff and parents were unaware.

After another question Associate Supt. Awrey gave Aylward a gesture to move on with the agenda. That’s when Aylward said she has to stick to the agenda and questions and answers are not on the agenda.

One parent sitting near Awrey asked Awrey why he signaled Aylward to not take questions.

Awrey denied he did this, but insisted they had to stick to the agenda.

Parents Linda Betzold and Sara DiFucci made a joint presentation on autism. One person attending described is as “an incredible performance, rich in content, holding the audience’s interest and at times making the entire room laugh.”

A loud round of applause followed their talks.

After the rendition, parents began asking questions and making comments. Parents who were new to publicly speaking out asked questions and commented.

One of the first parents commenting said how there was a “huge lack of information and communication.”

Another asked if items and notices of meetings could be included in the newsletter.  One parent pointed out how the district uses the Honeywell Emergency Alert system to notify parents how their student’s lunch card money balance is low, so why not use it to notify parents with IEP’s about the PAC meeting?

A parent described how administrators don’t want to be responsive to sensible suggestions even when they are repeated again and again. She pointed out how administrators have special ed staff members on their web site who haven’t been employed in one instance for two years and one of more instances not employed for 18 months.

A parent said,

“With all due respect (Supt.) Dr.(John) Burkey never comes to our meetings.

“It’s become a joke among parents how he runs and hides after board meetings.

“Can you find out if he will be here for our next meeting?”

Another parent talked about the staff members’ workload – caseload and said,

“Lauren Smith was driving it, but this doesn’t mean she knows what she’s talking about.”

Lauren Smith presented recommendations on Special Ed staffing to the board from a committee of administrators and teachers. Parents found out the committee members did not meet before Smith presented the committee’s recommendation to the board.

Plenty of parents talked to Awrey after the meeting for quite some time. Some parents wonder what will be passed onto the Superintendent.

Meanwhile Kalkirtz is no longer employed, even though the board has taken no action on her departure.

I’m not an expert in personnel policy.

Maybe it is customary in school districts for contractual certified administrators to leave without board action.

Saturday McHenry County Blog wrote about Special Education Director Cheryl Kalkirtz’ leaving the Huntley School District administrative building.

In a Monday article, it was revealed that Karen Aylward had been appointed Interim Director.

In that article, I told of not being able to find a certificate endorsement for her to be a Special Education Director.

A person commented under the article:

“I believe that is why this is an interim position. Either Karen Aylward will be required to get her certification or it will be filled by a qualified candidate come July 1. The state can grant probational status on candidates who do not hold the correct endorsements for a period of 1 year. Which in my guess is what is happening here.”

That makes sense to me.

What is raising my eyebrows today is what you see below, presented at the August 13, 2009, Special Ed Parent Advisory Committee meeting:

What is a “Type 75 Director of Special Education Endorsement?”

So far, neither of the Heralds have written a story about the revolving door nature of Special Education administrators in District 158.

Yesterday we left the Huntley School District’s Financial Advisory Committee meeting after talking about how stunned those attending were to find out that Special Education Director Cheryl Kalkirtz was no longer with District 158.

Controller Mark Altmayer for some reason didn’t think it proper to share the information, even though the Daily Herald had quoted Superintendent John Burkey on the subject in an internet published article.

In the public comment period, parents spoke about their lack of trust, especially when they see services not being delivered to their children.

They expressed their concerns about a revolving door with Special Ed administrators who seem to disagree with top administrators about what is the right approach.

Altmayer explained to the committee that parents had a distrust of special services but not the fiscal department (his area).

Parents then emphatically said they didn’t trust fiscal and wanted the committee to provide oversight regarding how the Federal Stimulus (initial time again, IDEA and IDEA ARRA) money is spent. They seemed to want a check and balance on whether it is being spent on where it is intended, that is, special needs.

Altmayer admitted that it wasn’t the district’s finest moments how “it took 4-5 months to get the IDEA ARRA funding correct.”

Strangely, in one breath, Altmayer cheerfully beamed,

“There is not a ton of issues.”

And, in another breath, Altmayer matter-of-factly referred to how administrators came up with how the Federal Stimulus money should be spent:

“It was pretty much a disaster.”

You might have had a teacher or two who told you to check your work before turning it in.

There are probably a few teachers in Huntley School District 158 who are either recoiling in dismay or laughing at how former teachers, now administrators in their district, have a different standard for themselves when they become administrators.

In this case, several parents, including Mrs. Sara DiFucci, seem far better at reading comprehension and mathematics than administrators who prepare and (are supposed to) read the documents given to the board and public.

In Thursday night’s board meeting, DiFucci pointed out a large error in special education material Supt. John Burkey submitted to the school board. It was in a document in which administrators added up their spending list for the Federal Stimulus ARRA IDEA funds.

There was a $295,576 addition error.

You can see the error on page 464 of 507 of the November board meeting packet.

If you scan and do a quick addition of the numbers on the first page of the report, say the first ten line items, you can see how they add up to much more than $800,000 (click to enlarge page 464).

Quick rounding is a way professionals and educators—even 5th graders in my son’s homework last year—look at numbers to see if there are any obvious errors.

Burkey’s board packet presented a spending total of $801,660.81 for 89 items in the initial request for Special Ed money from the Federal Stimulus Package.

The problem is that the first ten items on the two page list total more than $840,000.

A casual look of ten items lets you see there is an error.

Item	Precise No.	Quick Round, 000′s
1	$295,576	300
2	114,286	100
3	199,733	200
4	36,900	40
5	35,000	40
6	35,000	40
7	34,620	30
8	33,500	30
9	30,000	30
10	27,000	30
Above total	$841,615	840

Of course, Burkey probably doesn’t look at documents like this closely before they go to the board. That’s what staff are for.

Other administrators apparently didn’t bother either.

Later on in the meeting, board member Aileen Seedorf asked Controller Mark Altmayer if he knew of the large error.

Altmayer’s reply was interesting.

Without saying who was responsible, the Controller emphatically said it wasn’t his document, emphasizing he didn’t know about the error.

Sources within Huntley 158 have let it be known that multiple administrators knew of the error before Thursday night.

Is it possible, as top financial guy, Altmayer was left out of the loop and this wasn’t discussed at Burkey’s weekly cabinet meetings of which he’s part?

One might think that an expenditure as contentious as this would make that agenda.

To be fair to the new Special Ed (Special Services) Director Cheryl Kalkirtz, I have it on reasonably good authority the error was not of her making.

Interesting is no administrator was willing to raise his or her hand and say it was not Burkey’s mistake.

Burkey in the past has seemed proud of how he has a C.P.A. as Controller.

No comments about the C.P.A. test Altmayer passed Thursday night.

A fair question to ask is “What’s the point of having a C.P.A. as Controller if the district’s isn’t taking care that public documents with financial numbers in them are carefully reviewed?”

In any event, someone dropped the ball. In fact, the total for the proposed Special Education expenditures from the Federal Stimulus Package aren’t even in the ballpark.

In years past, Huntley’s board had Larry Snow and Tony Quagliano on it.

Both loved to review financial documents.

Snow, of course, lost to Mike Skala and Quagliano decided to retire.

There’s still a CPA on the board, Keven Gentry, but he apparently didn’t catch this mistake while reading the board packet. There are also a couple of M.B.A.’s on the board now. But, considering the District 158 administration dumped 507 pages into the board packet, there’s no reason they should have discovered the mistake.

The only board member who gave an indication of caring about the large error was Aileen Seedorf, who has been the one bird dogging on Special Education matters.

The six-member board majority expressed no concern at the mistake.

I will note, however, when state officials wanted a legislator not to find something, they smothered them in so much paper the odds of finding something that might be amiss were minuscule.

Burying people in paper is a tried and proven way to keep people from finding something.

Supt. Burkey didn’t so much as offer a superficial apology for the mistake. He didn’t say a word.

A $295,576 error would seem to me to be worth a mention.

Teachers help our children learn how errors should be admitted to when made.

It’s not as if anyone was expecting a Tiger Woods-like “I regret those transgressions with all of my heart” type of apology or offer of repentance.

An insincere “We regret the inconvenience this error may have caused anyone” that you might associate with a utility, bank or cable provider would have been in the something – anything category.

The example to teachers in the audience was when you make a large error admit to nothing and don’t say a word.

Special Ed director Kalkirtz apparently reports to Associate Supt. Terry Awrey.

Awrey, like all other administrators, sat silent, not volunteering a word lest it be thought he was at fault.

Showing teachers that neither he nor any of his top administrators are willing to admit to an error can hardly be considered leading by example.

It certainly won’t win a “We Set Good Examples” shiny apple award.

My guess is that all sorts of people set better examples of accountability than those unwilling to admit or apologize for this $300,000 mistake in public.

Say,

• kindergarten teachers
• first grade teachers
• second grade teachers
• third grade teachers
• fourth grade teachers
• fifth grade teachers
• sixth grade teachers
• any special ed teachers
• any certified special ed support people

or, well, you get the idea.

Some administrator(s) apparently has (have) not learned to check work before turning it in. Or to take responsibility for mistakes.

Or proof read the reading assignment given to the board and public.

Educators (and President Barack Obama) talk of teachable moments.

The Special Education revelation could have been one of those.

Burkey could have apologized for his staff’s mistake.

He didn’t.

He could have asked his staff in public to be more careful in the future, to double check their work before turning it in.

It gives me something other administrators can use as “how-not-to” example.

Perhaps the school board and the public will allow the “whatever” approach to an almost $300,000 error.

Even my son has learned there are consequences to that approach.

My guess is that teachers have set higher standards for students in Huntley’s classrooms.