McHenry County Blog

Here’s the press release.  I’m not sure what the following means, but it jumped out at me:

“…the current design of our special education program is not conducive to student success…”

Superintendent Elect outlines Phase I of priority shift

Superintendent Elect Michael Bregy interacts with parents at a D300 PTO Council meeting

District 300 Superintendent Elect Michael Bregy met today (Thursday, Feb. 17) with administrators and support staff to outline Phase I of his plan to shift the district’s top priority to teaching and learning.

“Because our financial resources are increasingly limited, we must ensure that administration’s energy is focused on our core mission of teaching and learning,” Bregy said. “My plan will shift our top priority to this area, which our students need and deserve.”

His staff meetings today were also attended by ECRA, the Rosemont-based education research firm that conducted D300′s last Strategic Plan in 2006 and has facilitated annual surveys of D300 stakeholders.

Over the past few months, ECRA studied D300′s inner-workings, identifying areas for potential improvements to the administrative structure and culture. This process included several focus groups with Central Office and school staff, one-on-one interviews, analysis of job duties, comparison to similar districts, and data collection.

ECRA consultants presented today a summary of their findings, which are one factor in the priority shift. Some of their findings were as follows:

Major strengths of district administration include:

• External communication with parents and the community
• Fiscal operations and responsibility
• Effectiveness of high school divisionals
• Staff efficiency, as a whole
• Employees’ heartfelt commitment to serving D300 students and schools

Areas for improvement in district administration include:

• A priority shift toward the district’s core mission of teaching and learning
• Curriculum coordination, especially at the elementary level
• Internal communication with staff
• Central Office support for and supervision of principals
• Cooperation among Central Office departments

At the heart of the shift will be the elimination of some administrator positions and the creation of others, as follows:

Positions to be eliminated for the 2011-2012 school year:

• Director of Assessment & Accountability, now held by Carole Cooper, who is retiring this summer
• Director of Pupil Personnel Services, now held by Dr. Barbara Kelley, who is changing districts
• Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum & Instruction, now held by Tom Hay, who will be moved this summer into a new position (listed below)
• Assistant Superintendent for Operations, now held by Sarah Kedroski, who will be promoted this summer to Associate Superintendent (a position that has existed for over 10 years), making her 2nd in command of the district
• Assistant principal and/or dean positions, to be determined

Positions to be created for the 2011-2012 school year:

• Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Services, which assumes some Assessment & Accountability responsibilities, as well as overseeing alternative education programs and summer school. Tom Hay will take this new position.
• Four positions which are equals on the organizational chart, all reporting to the Superintendent and all with the title of Assistant Superintendent for Teaching & Learning.

Three of these positions will be grade-specific: elementary (includes preschool), middle school, and high school. The fourth will cover “Education Services,” including special education, nursing, counselors, homeless, and other duties.

Bregy noted that this structure will allow D300 to better capitalize on being a unit district, meaning that all grade levels (preschool through 12th grade) are included. D300 senior leaders have the opportunity to concentrate on college/career readiness from the time children are very young. The Teaching & Learning Assistant Superintendents will serve as a team, ensuring that there are more consistent expectations and supports between grade levels across the district.

“Now is also a perfect time to shift our priorities to mirror the national shift toward Common Core State Standards,” he said. “Illinois’ newly adopted Common Core Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn in the areas of Language Arts and Math.” For more information about Common Core State Standards, please visit the national website or the state website.

He is in the process of determining what shifts, if any, he may make to the support staff structure. He does not anticipate numerous layoffs to office support staff in the schools or the Central Office, citing administration’s lean staffing structure relative to the size and scope of the district. However, he may decide to eliminate a few positions, and/or he may reassign job duties to support the priority shift.

Interviews for the new positions will be conducted this month and next. If any internal candidates are selected, interviews for their vacated positions will occur in March/April. Bregy plans to have his 2011-2012 administrative team in place (including any support staff changes) for a public announcement by May 2, 2011.

The May 2 announcement will officially introduce Phase II of the priority shift, which will also feature details of a comprehensive overhaul of the D300 Special Education program.

D300 leaders are now developing a long-range plan to reprioritize the district’s resources to better support special needs students, enhance the leadership and accountability of special education programming, and more effectively mainstream these students (when appropriate) into the general education setting. As part of this process, an outside firm, called the Urban Special Education Leadership Collaborative, is currently finalizing an audit of D300 special education programming and staffing levels.

Last evening (Feb. 16), the D300 School Board informally expressed support for Administration’s proposal to reduce the special education budget by about $400,000, with the specifics to be determined after the audit is completed this spring.

Bregy cautioned parents against interpreting this cut as a negative.

“The special education program is not being reduced. Individualized Education Plans will not be negatively impacted,” he said.

“But the current design of our special education program is not conducive to student success, so we will be making significant changes with student achievement as our top priority.”

During the School Board work session last evening about 2011-2012 budget cuts, Board members spoke at length with Mr. Bregy and Dr. Kelley about restructuring special education.

Several special education parents in attendance benefitted from this enlightening conversation.

A recording of the meeting will be posted to http://bit.ly/d300budgetcuts in the near future; scroll down to the section called “Audio Recordings of Board Meetings.”

Over the years, fewer and fewer D300 students have IEPs, even as the district’s enrollment has grown by 350 to 550 students a year. This means that more students are being successfully served in a less restrictive environment among their regular education peers, as follows:

• December 2007: 3,158 students with IEPs
• December 2008: 3,150
• December 2009: 3,093
• February 2010: 3,029

“Even as the number of IEPs continues to decline, this segment of our student population remains as important to us as ever,” Bregy said. “But the decline does mean that the quantity and types of special education staff should be studied.”

In December, the United States Department of Education’s Civil Rights Office (OCR) notified Dr. Peter Koehn that his complaints about the treatment of Special Education children met the criteria for an investigation.

Monday night the Harvard School Board dismissed whistle blower Koehn from his position as School Psychologist.

The clinical psychologist, who has hung his shingle out in Crystal Lake at Neal Psychological Specialties (815-477-4727), now intends to help parents of students with disabilities obtain the education that their children deserve.

Koehn complained that Harvard’s school system was discriminating against students in grade, junior high and high school when it changed IEP’s (Individual Education Programs) in the Fall of 2010, which led to a significant change in placement without following appropriate evaluation and placement procedures.

Department of Education Team Leader/Supervisory Attorney Aleeza Strubel stresses in her letter of December 3rd that the opening of an investigation “in no way implies that OCR has made a determination with regard to its merit.”

In a separate letter acknowledging a second Koehn complaint to the same office, Stubel informed him an investigation would be made of his complaint about being subjected “to retaliation after you objected to changes that the junior high school Principal made to students’ Individual Education Program (IEPs) during the summer of 2010. After you raised these objections, the Principal required to participate in a pre-disciplinary meeting on October 20, 2010, with the Superintendent.”

The following press release from Huntley School District 158 might be of interest to some readers:

Notice IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)

Karen Aylward

Mrs. Karen Aylward, Director of Special Services for Consolidated School District 158, of McHenry and Kane Counties, Illinois announced that School District 158 will be sponsoring an IDEA 2004 Consultation meeting regarding Private School Students with disabilities on Monday, September 27, 2010 at 10:00 AM in room 180 at the Administrative Building, 650 Academic Drive, Algonquin, Illinois.

This meeting is in accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act.

Parents of homeschooled students having or suspected of having disabilities residing in School District 158 are invited to attend. For further information, contact Mrs. Aylward at 847-659-6158.

Since the Huntley-based Grafton Township has spent so much on legal fees, the report on legal fees to the Huntley School Board caught my attention.

You can read the detail below by clicking on the images and a summary not provided the school board below the images.

But, there is a second reason for showing you this detail. It is not available from McHenry County College.

That’s right. The McHenry County College Board refuses to allow people to see what its rather considerable legal fees have been spent upon.

Construction problems at the two new elementary schools on the Square Barn campus cost the most.  Labeled “Con-Mack Leaks,” it cost the district the most – $143,724 for lawyers’ advice.   $127,368 to Hinshaw and $16,356 to Miller.

Second most was spent by the school board – $29,539 in all. Hinshaw got $28,447 and Miller $1,092.

The next highest category was Special Education. It totaled $24,916. Sraga billed $18,148 and Miller $6,768.

Human Resources cost $15,415 in legal fees. $10,839 to Hinshaw and $3,567 to Miller.

Legal expenses dealing with the unions cost $12,404. All but $36 was billed by Hinshaw, the rest by Miller.

“Other” came in at $10,558. $10,559. Hinshaw’s share of the billings was $8,565, while the Miller law firm snagged $1,993.

Superintendent John Burkey claimed $5,836 of the total, $3,388 for Hinshaw and $2,448 for Miller.

The Operating and Maintenance category came in at $7,370. $6,838 went to Hinshaw and $1,532 to Miller.

I find it strange that neither the above totals were included in the legal expense report nor the total tax dollars spent on lawyers.

Cheryl Kalkirtz

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.”

Special Education writing on the wall of School District 158's Associate Superintendent Terry Awrey's office. (Click to enlarge or look below.)

Maybe the analogy alluded to in the headline is off base.

It looks like job descriptions. This is the left hand side of what you see above. (Click to enlarge.)

It’s difficult to tell what went on in Huntley School District 158′s Associate Superintendent Terry Awrey’s office the day this whiteboard was covered with special education notes.  There seem to be job descriptions.

This is the right hand side of the white board seen on top. (Click to enlarge.)

Perhaps some readers can figure out what is going on.

Perhaps it provides an insight as to why so many special ed administrators have left District 158 in such a short time.

Unlike questions about the January 11th resignation letter of Cheryl Kalkirtz, which I am still waiting for District 158 to produce, there can’t be much question this is the real thing.

So, tell me, folks in the know, what’s going on here?

Lazy River at Wisconsin Dells Kalahari Resort approaching a waterfall.

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.

Cheryl Kalkirtz

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.

Cheryl Kalkirtz at a town hall meeting on special education shortly after being hired.

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?

Superintendent John Burkey and Special Education Director Cheryl Kalkirtz in happier times.

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.

Karen Aylward

I wrote about how Karen Aylward, now the top special ed administrator in Huntley 158, objected to having the meeting with special ed parents run five or ten minutes longer last month.

Ninety minutes. That was the time limit.

This month the Supt. John Burkey administration seems to want no misunderstanding whatsoever about strictly enforcing an hour and a half time limit for the Parent Advisory Committee meeting.

Pretty heavy handed about a 90-minute meeting that doesn’t allow for a question and answer period…unless it is specifically on the agenda.

Maybe the committee should be renamed the “Advise the Parent Committee” rather than the “Parents Advisory Committee,” inasmuch as administrators don’t want to listen to parents about something as simple as being flexible about when the meeting ends.

Fortunately the teachers of special ed students in Huntley are far more dedicated and less time rule obsessive than administrators.

Meanwhile Supt. Burkey likely feels it’s so unfair that parents don’t trust him or his administrators.

One summer, 2009, open-ended Special Ed Town Hall Meeting

Apparently Burkey has opted for the “containment” approach to parents.  A new model in community outreach, I guess.

As opposed to last summer’s Special Education Town Hall Meetings, where at least some school board members listened.

Common sense might dictate that, if an administrator has to leave promptly on a given night, he or she does that.

Huntley administrators leave board meetings early all of the time, so this would be hardly something new.

But this seems to be about more than just getting home to see the wife/husband and kids.

It’s about making the meetings as meaningless as possible, while being able to publicly tout the sincerity of how administrators are listening to parents…if only for a part of ninety minutes

Here’s the limitation on the meeting, which can be found here.

Any community member interested in adding items

to the agenda please contact kaylward@district158.org

(*Note- Our meetings will begin and end promptly

as scheduled, allowing staff and community to

respect professional and personal commitments.

“Please drive safely, everyone.”)