McHenry County Blog

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

With Cheryl Kalkirtz no longer being Huntley School District 158′s  Director of Special Education, the question arises as to who is in charge.

After I asked if Karen Aylward had been appointed Interim Director, Community Relations Coordinator Lori Woods confirmed that she had been.

A relevant question might be whether Aylward is certified to hold the post.  If that interests you, then you might be interested in seeing the results of a public search on the Illinois State Board of Education’s web site below (click to enlarge):

Aylward appears to have had her administrator certificate for over one year, but this public record doesn’t show any endorsement to be a Special Education Director.

Renee Erickson was one of the Assistant Special Ed Directors who left Huntley School District 158 at the end of last school year. (Three Special Ed administrators left at the end of the last school year.)  Erickson received her endorsement to be a Special Ed Director last June, as evidenced by what is on the ISBE’s web site. She now works for Palatine District 211, according to the State Board of Education web site.

Does anyone in Huntley District 158 have a Special Ed Director administrator endorsement?

If not, wouldn’t that strike you as unusual?

Apparently none of the four top administrators have a Special Education endorsement.  That’s what the Illinois State Board of Education web site indicates.

That would include

• Superintendent John Burkey
• Associate Superintendent Terry Awrey
• Chief Academic Officer Mary Olson
• Chief Human Resources Officer Lauren Smith

Controller Mark Altmayer is not listed on the educational certificate data base, although that doesn’t seem terribly important. (I remember voting against the first bill—usually passed as a courtesy—that State Rep. Dick Mulcahey passed after his Watergate victory. In the middle of a recession, it required school business managers to have a master’s degree in education. It was obviously a teachers’ jobs’ bill, but what a waste. Financial talent was being laid off all over the place, but, state law forbid that anyone outside of the educational establishment be hired!)

Huntley had not posted a job opening for a Special Ed Director by Monday noon.

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.

There were apparent multiple contradictions voiced last Thursday night at District 158’s board meeting.

First, Supt. John Burkey was again insisting next year’s financial picture is “bleak.”

Second, six of seven board members were saying they “intended” to spend an additional $800,000 on additional special ed items next year. The Feds provided $1.6 million, but the board wants to divert half of that to non-special ed needs.

That’s legal, but morality is another question.

The board, though, is saying it will spend another $800,000–above and beyond the special ed base–on special ed next year.

So, which is it?

Is the district in trouble financially or does it have chunks of money coming in next year that can be spent anyway the board wants to.

It’s hard to see why the board couldn’t spent the entire $1.6 million this year, considering this year’s budget shows a $2.3 million surplus.

When Linda Betzold, a special ed parent, explained the board’s “intentions” to the Special Ed Committee last Thursday night there was spontaneous laughter from the special ed mothers.

It’s hard to fool a mother when they are in “Mom” mode. Apparently the three top administrators who are male, Burkey, Controller Mark Altmayer and Terry Awrey apparently thought the moms wouldn’t notice.

They did.

It may be a typical male, sexist attitude that will blame the moms if they file a class action lawsuit seeking appropriate educations for their children.

The guys apparently weren’t listening when mothers explained they were spending in some instances $50,000 and $80,000 in one year for special ed services the district won’t provide.

That is serious money.

There is no serious effort being made to start the school year off with providing additional services for special ed kids with the first $800,000 of new money from the Fed’s stimulus package.

The start of school year is right around the corner.

Everyone including Supt. Burkey agrees the list of what to spend the first $800,000 on is largely defective.

This was pointed out by the special ed moms more than a month ago. I heard their objections.

They had keener insights than the administrators.

In a July 31st column, Daily Herald reporter Jameel Naqvi summed up the proposal’s defectiveness.

“But Burkey did say the list of items on which the remaining $800,000 will be spent is being retooled to include more staff and parent input.

“‘I don’t think we have a lot of staff involved, and that bothers me,’ Burkey said.”

On Thursday night, new Special Ed Director Cheryl Kalkirtz didn’t bother to ask the parents for their input on retooling these items.

When parent Linda Berthold asked this to be included on next month’s agenda, Kalkirtz essentially said that it wasn’t the purpose of the committee.

I wonder what part of “Advisory” Kalkirtz doesn’t understand in the title “Special Ed Parents Advisory Committee?”

The board majority seems content with how the guys (Burkey, Altmayer and Awrey) haven’t come up with a spending list or implementation plan for the start of school.

How likely is it the “guys” don’t have a special needs child?

My guess is with their lack of urgency, 100%. Awrey is second in command and a Crystal Lake (not a District 158) resident. Altmayer lives in Geneva.

The last defective list was put together in a memo on May 14th. You can find it using this link and going to “5.1 ARRA Funds.”

Let’s see that’s May 14th, June 14th, July 14th, August 14th.

Three months and not one thing specifically proposed by the “guys” is ready to be improved and implemented for the start of school.

If they keep dragging their feet they can blow off implementing anything for the entire first semester. (Just as with they almost did with the student drug testing program.)

Wait a minute, maybe delay is their non-educational educational plan for the special needs children?

One would hope members of the the board majority would ask administrators for the

question about their new plan. Even a “natural” deadline like “school is starting” is allowed to slide.

One thing’s for sure:

the “guys” didn’t want Kalkirtz suggesting a revised list for discussion purposes at Thursday’s special ed advisory meeting.

And she complied.

Now the “guys” and Kalkirtz can delay still another month before revealing how they will help the special ed kids.

Kalkirtz doesn’t live in District 158 either.

Not adding services for the start of school doesn’t directly affect her family either.

In this respect she is just like “one of the guys.”

Welcome to the club.

An interesting thing happened at last Thursday night’s Huntley school board meeting.

First, Superintendent Burkey was unable to attend the meeting, being at a Superintendents’ meeting of Large Unit District Association officials.

So, second in command Terry Awrey was in charge. Awrey addressed the issue of making up school days.

But for some reason Awrey expanded the topic to include whether you have to make up days or not.

Awrey talked with Gene Goeglein the County Regional Superintendent of Schools. Goeglein informed Awrey that unless the District made up the school days the District would lose accreditation. Based on this Associate Superintendent Terry Awrey said Thursday:

“If we were to miss those three days, not only would we lose our general state aid for those three days, we’d lose our accreditation as a school.” (Northwest Herald)

It just so happens there is no requirement to lose accreditation.

The Illinois State Law Survey says:

“The school district may also suffer recognition penalties.”

“May.”

Not “Shall.”

Big Difference.

I would expect District 158 officials will clarify this at a future meeting.

They wouldn’t want the teachers who just went on strike to incorrectly believe the District will lose accreditation, if they don’t make up the days.

The Huntley teachers union wanted to make up the days and not lose three days pay.

So much so the union agreed to drop four alleged unfair labor practices against Huntley District 158.

What happened to the teachers the union were fighting for in these legal actions?

Sounds like the union leaders sold their interests down the river.

The Board, you see, had no intention of making up the three days. And in order for the union not to lose three days pay, the union had to give the Board something.

One of those items the union wanted badly was very hotly contested during negotiations and was included one of the unfair labor practices. The union wanted to go to the legal mats for it in the hope they could get lucky with a ruling.

The result was the teachers union had to give up its legal claims on it and more or keep on striking.

It seems it was not a Norma Rae moment.

Julie Hunter and Kim Aschenbach, Huntley teacher union co-presidents and grievance chair Jane Kantor threw solidarity out the window.

Solidarity is when teacher union leaders want their “professionals” to march with signs, and chant slogans while striking.

But what do you call it when their fellow teacher leaders sell out the interests of individual teachers?

I can’t come up with a word that really fits.

The sold out teachers clearly would have been better off if there hadn’t been a strike.

An interesting thing happened at last Thursday night’s Huntley school board meeting.

First, Superintendent Burkey was unable to attend the meeting, being at a Superintendents’ meeting of Large Unit District Association officials.

So, second in command Terry Awrey was in charge. Awrey addressed the issue of making up school days.

But for some reason Awrey expanded the topic to include whether you have to make up days or not.

Awrey talked with Gene Goeglein the County Regional Superintendent of Schools. Goeglein informed Awrey that unless the District made up the school days the District would lose accreditation. Based on this Associate Superintendent Terry Awrey said Thursday:

“If we were to miss those three days, not only would we lose our general state aid for those three days, we’d lose our accreditation as a school.” (Northwest Herald)

It just so happens there is no requirement to lose accreditation.

The Illinois State Law Survey says:

“The school district may also suffer recognition penalties.”

“May.”

Not “Shall.”

Big Difference.

I would expect District 158 officials will clarify this at a future meeting.

They wouldn’t want the teachers who just went on strike to incorrectly believe the District will lose accreditation, if they don’t make up the days.

The Huntley teachers union wanted to make up the days and not lose three days pay.

So much so the union agreed to drop four alleged unfair labor practices against Huntley District 158.

What happened to the teachers the union were fighting for in these legal actions?

Sounds like the union leaders sold their interests down the river.

The Board, you see, had no intention of making up the three days. And in order for the union not to lose three days pay, the union had to give the Board something.

One of those items the union wanted badly was very hotly contested during negotiations and was included one of the unfair labor practices. The union wanted to go to the legal mats for it in the hope they could get lucky with a ruling.

The result was the teachers union had to give up its legal claims on it and more or keep on striking.

It seems it was not a Norma Rae moment.

Julie Hunter and Kim Aschenbach, Huntley teacher union co-presidents and grievance chair Jane Kantor threw solidarity out the window.

Solidarity is when teacher union leaders want their “professionals” to march with signs, and chant slogans while striking.

But what do you call it when their fellow teacher leaders sell out the interests of individual teachers?

I can’t come up with a word that really fits.

The sold out teachers clearly would have been better off if there hadn’t been a strike.