McHenry County Blog

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.”

Karen Aylward at a summer District 158 Town Meeting on Special Education.

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.

Linda Betzold

Sara DiFucci

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.

At one point in the Financial Advisory Committee meeting, Huntley School District Controller Altmayer tried to persuade the committee that special needs children receive $10 million  more than what comes in for special education.  (Subject addressed here.)

Parents in the audience were visibly angered by this misleading assertion.

It is apparent to the parents their children should receive a proportion of school expenditures by virtue they are 1,300 students (per Altmayer) out of about 8,600 students enrolled.

The parents, of course, also pay property taxes and State Aid to Education comes to the district, based on student attendance.

If their students attend the district’s schools, the district receives money from the state, regardless of whether they are regular or special ed students.

The parents are intelligent and some are as well-educated as the administrators.

They can figure out that 1300 students comprise 15% of the district’s 8,600.

When the money specifically designated as Special Ed from the state and federal grants are added to this, they know their students are being financially shortchanged.

Not just in dollars, which is pretty obvious), but they can see it in the lack of services delivered.

Sara DiFucci, a Special Ed Mom in the district took issue with Altmayer’s numbers.

She pointed out that what he classifies as “Special Ed” includes services that are provided to all students.

Not all of the extensive social workers’ services, counseling or psychologist services for example go to Special Ed students. His numbers always assume 100% of these services and others are exclusively consumed by Special Ed students and 0% is used by regular education students.

Teenage pregnancy counseling, homelessness issues, socialization of grade school kids and many home life issues occur for both regular and Special Ed students.

Parents have asked for transparency in the form of a comprehensive, line item detailed Special Education budget.

When parents have asked administrators for a copy of the Special Ed budget, they were referred to the no longer employed Special Ed director.

When they would then ask the Special Ed Director, she apparently received direction to refer parents back to Altmayer.

You can imagine that such a daisy chain does not result in parents’ trusting fiscal services.

Huntley School District 158 Controller Mark Altmayer

Altmayer said he wasn’t able to make his computer display the presentation he had for the meeting.

He referred to it as a “link up problem.”

On the one hand Altmayer said:

“I’m just the finance guy.”

Later on, the discussion got onto the budget agenda item.

Altmayer was advocating his spending priorities, which is to spend more on computer and technical upgrades.

He emphasized how he has the entire staff (including teachers and service providers in Special Ed) 100% buying into his budget priorities.

The parents who work with their students’ staff have a different story.

= = = = =

See also Part 1 and Part 2.

I’ve been filing Freedom of Information requests with local, state and federal government entities for a couple of decades.

I have never received a reply such as the one I just got from Huntley School District 158.

I had submitted my second request for memos relating to the two reading programs which Special Ed Moms don’t think will of much help to their children, but could be useful to kids in the regular education program.

The first, contained within a multi-subject request, didn’t catch the attention of District 158 enough to even be mentioned in the reply.

Being more patient than most people give me credit for—hey, what choice does someone dealing with government have?—I filed a second FOI request asking for the same memos.

Now, I have received the following reply:

“We are unable to comply with your request for ‘memos previously requested concerning Real 180 and System 44′ as the request is too vague.  Further information is needed (dates of memos, name(s) of person(s) to whom and from whom the memo is address, pertinent information contained in the memorandum, etc.) in order to comply with your request.“

If almost sounds as if I must have a copy of the memos before I can get a copy of the memos.

I have appeal that denial to School Board President Shawn Green. In my appeal, I wrote,

“It is my belief that there are two such memos, which it seems to me could be found by an FOI officer by sending my request to those who have been involved in the purchase of these programs. Or, if you have a centralized computer records system, just searching it using those two identifiers as search items.

“If your staff cannot find these memos or, if you deny my appeal, I shall refile my request after January 1st and see how the newly amended law works.”

Starting in the new year, disputes can be referred to the Illinois Attorney General for resolution.

Anyone able to help me make that request more specific than the one that has so far been denied, please email me at the address at the upper left of McHenry County Blog.

Special Ed Mom Sara Deifucci started this story at the Huntley School District Board meeting on November 5th.

She asked this intriguing question:

“Has the district already purchased anything that parents aren’t aware of? Have you already purchased Read 180 licenses?”

Superintendent John Burkey replied,

“No.”

“If I FOI it, (will I find something)?” Deifucci continued.

“Do your FOIA (short for Freedom of Information request),” he said.

I don’t know whether she followed through, but I filed one that night.

Here is the summarized contents of the reply (click to enlarge any image):

• Intervention Treatment Proposal for Heineman Middle School for Read 180 and System 44 Materials Purchase
• Request to Purchase Form to Scholastic Inc. in the amount of $57,295.20
• Purchase Order #58187 to Scholastic in the amount of $57,295.20 for 180 licenses, Teacher and Classroom Materials
• Scholastic Invoice #2833847 in the amount of $5,760.00
• Scholastic Invoice #2833071 in the amount of $51,168.22
• Check #065672 payable to Scholastic Inc. in the amount of $57,233.62

It appears from the backup material from Heineman that Scholastic made an offer for 30 Read 180 licenses and 30 System 44 licenses for $57,295.20 and someone was able to convince the vendor to allow District 158 to buy 60 licenses for Read 180 and none of System 44 for the same price.

The heading does not indicate the Read 180 license will be used for special ed kids. As you can see, it says,

“Intervention Treatment Proposal for Heineman Middle School – 60 Below Proficient Students”

The date on the request to purchase form signed by Chief Academnic Officer Mary M. Olson is 8-28-9.   On the purchase order, she writes, on 10-14-9, “OK to pay in full.”

On 8-31, Scholastic apparently received a $5,760 bill for what appears to be four Read 180 licenses.

Next in the FOI reply package was a bill for $51,168, apparently for Marlowe Middle School, according to the check stub. It identifies the $5,760 purchase and the $51,168 as coming from “ADA Block Curriculum materials.”

I note one line for $998 seems to be for college prep. At least that’s what “COLLE PP” seems to indicate.

So, what’s it all mean?

I asked District 47′s Community Relations Officer Lorie Woods for a reaction and here’s what she sent:

“The question was in reference to the use of ARRA or IDEA funds to purchase Read 180 licenses, materials, etc. The purchases for which you have copies of Purchase Orders, Invoices, etc. were for the pilot program at Heineman Middle School.  Those items were paid for through the ADA (Average Daily Attendance) Grant.”

Yesterday, the first half of a report was published on what happened on the special ed front at the parents advisory committee meeting and the subsequent school board meeting. What follows, concludes that report.

Board member Aileen Seedorf questioned a disbursement to Scholastic Inc. for over fifty thousand dollars in the financial records. Scholastic provides Read 180.

Controller Mark Altmayer didn’t give it up and said he didn’t know.

With some persistence, other administrators fessed up and the cat was out of the bag.

Finally, Supt. Burkey confessed, saying 60 licenses had been purchased.

Curriculum director Mary Olsen said all of these licenses were to be used only for regular education students.

Tough to figure out how no licenses had been purchased a week earlier but we’ll wait for the response to the Freedom of Information request. And, if it’s unsatisfactory, I’ll file it again after January 1st when there will be actual penalties for those responding falsely.

One could still wonder why the Read 180 purchases were in a special ed classroom unpacked by a special ed student and given to a special ed student to take home to his parents.

Apparently at least one special ed student had been using the Read 180 program when none had been purchased for their use.

What the special ed parents asked for at the board meeting was

• Being able to make a presentation to the board on caseload staffing
• Parent participation on the committee coming up with revised ARRA funds spending recommendations

Seedorf tried to get the board and Burkey to agree to schedule a presentation by the parents at the next committee of the whole meeting.

Burkey and the board majority turned cold shoulders to both suggestions.

How unreasonable are such requests, considering how the Special Ed Moms have been treated this fall?

They are very reasonable.

In order to get the superintendent and 158 administrators to listen one apparently has to go door-to-door passing out flyers.

The Daily Herald pointed out how Burkey had “stone ears” in its article and how the parents distributed flyers door-to-door in order to stop this vote and get a revised spending list.

The Northwest Herald observed of the newest revision of how District 158 intends to spend the $1.6 million (which happened after the flyers hit door knobs):

“And the initiative for additional staff development –such as the opportunity to be trained in disability awareness –increased to $450,000 total.”

Parents told the board there had been other items purchased besides Read 180 and there was an internal memo indicating such.

As you might expect, administrators asked for a copy of their own memo, rather than offer to provide the memo to the board with an explanation.

Perhaps the memo has to surface publicly before its existence is confirmed by the administration.

Sort of like how the Read 180 licenses and materials weren’t purchased this year until a special ed parent brought the materials to a board meeting for show and tell.

District 158 is among the model local governments in revealing what will be discussed at their meetings. (In comparison, Crystal Lake reveals nothing more than its agenda and, then, not on a convenient basis.)

But with how it obtained the Read 180 licenses, which it apparently wants to finance with Federal stimulus money and which educational value is clearly experimental for special ed kids, “transparency” apparently means,

“Show us evidence of what you suspect and we’ll admit that’s what it is.”

Thank goodness for observant parents.

And others.

The Huntley School District 158 Board room was packed Thursday at 7 PM.

The only two empty seats were that of Board President Shawn Green and board member Kim Skaja. Skaja showed up after missing the academic spotlight and almost all of the parents’ public comments.  Green was absent, having told me that he would participate by phone if the special education agenda item were to be considered.

The parents’ advisory committee meeting on special ed had started at 6. It received record attendance. (Seen above are some of those who attended the July 14th meeting of the same committee.)

Many special ed teachers were in attendance.

At issue were staffing recommendations that has caseloads close to the legal maximum limit, for example, for speech pathologists in five schools.

The plan proposed by the administration for formal adoption has the burden being placed on individual teachers to prove they have too large of a caseload before adequate staffing is considered to meet the needs of the children.

“Prove it! with you doing all of the work” is apparently Human Resources Chief Lauren Smith’s new idea of working together and “collaborating” with the teachers.

The first item discussed by Special Ed Director Cheryl Kalkirtz was her suggestion to not have a December 10th parents advisory committee meeting.

She asked for a show of hands of those favoring not having the meeting.

The only hands raised were the administrators’.

When then asked how many wanted to have the meeting, a roomful of hands went up.

The attempt to gain approval to cancel the meeting at which the Federal stimulus ARRA IDEA spending would be discussed with parents failed. Apparently, their kids education was considered more important than Christmas parties.

One parent in 158, who is a special ed teacher in another district, made this point about the reading programs proposed to be financed with Federal funds:

“What are we doing to make sure it’s being implemented properly?”

When Kalkirtz seemed to try to brush off the point, wanting to move onto a different topic, a Special Ed Mom from the back of the room spoke up:

“I don’t think you heard what she was saying!”

It was fairly obvious from comments made by some of the teachers that this may have been the only time all of these teachers were in a room and asked or allowed to voice their opinions and ask questions about how the $1.6 million dollars should be spent.

It certainly did not appear that administrators had asked the teachers for their input on the revised list of expenditures.

Strange that teachers may have to attend public meetings if they want to “collaborate” with administrators on a group basis. Wouldn’t you think that would be included in the union contract?

Parents learned that, contrary to what Supt. John Burkey said at the previous board meeting, 60 Read 180 licenses had already been purchased for Heineman school. (When Burkey challenged a Special Ed Mom to file a Freedom of Information request on the topic the Thursday before last, I did. I’ll let you know when I get the response.)

The Moms knew this because, apparently as part of class time, a special ed student was assigned to unpack the boxes which were stacked up in a special ed room.

In addition, a special ed student received the Read 180 materials to take home so the parents could see what was going to be used for that student.

More tomorrow.