Friday, November 27, 2009

I Respectfully Dissent

The following are topics raised at the last board meeting from which I dissented from the majority or am likely to do so in the future.

Staff Travel
The Matawan-Aberdeen school district spends approximately $350,000 annually for professional development. This includes the costs of the programs, travel, hospitality, and substitute teachers. Considering the number of teachers pursuing degrees and credits through no-name online institutions, I asked if a teacher had ever requested reimbursement to attend an online seminar. First everybody laughed and then Dr. O’Malley answered no, never.

Moving forward, if I notice a teacher has received a salary adjustment based upon credits/degrees received from a lowly regarded online institution, I will object to that teacher attending any seminar that requires him to “lose” a day of work. If the teacher believes that a “Walden” education warrants a huge pay raise then I see no reason why he can’t attend online seminars that don’t interfere with his classroom instruction, not to mention the cost savings to the district.

Salary Adjustments
I will object to all salary adjustments based upon “Walden” degrees and credits if the administration has not spot-checked that individual’s application to ensure the degree/credits were “earned” as the contract requires.

The administration reserves the right to take reasonable measures to ensure compliance with the labor contract. It should be standard practice to “trust but verify” and I hope the administration reconsiders its posture in this regard.

Collaboration Pairs
In the words of fellow board member, Dr. Delaney, “we’re paying teachers to talk with each other.” Those teachers involved in special education or intervention programs need to consult with the classroom teachers regarding specific students. Since the teachers sometimes don’t have overlapping prep periods, they need to have the discussions after school hours and the “past practice” is to compensate them for time spent talking with each other.

However, this has morphed into the fraudulent practice of paying all teachers who need to consult with each other regardless if they have overlapping prep periods or not. For example, the agenda calls for $9,400 in middle school teacher stipends to “talk with each other” even though, due to block scheduling, every teacher in the middle school has a shared 36-minute prep period each day.

The board tabled the motion and, moving forward, I doubt we’ll be supporting any stipends for collaboration pairs when a pair shares a prep period.

However, I will be taking this one step further. Given the recent test results, I will not support any further expenditures for the RTI program. If a collaboration pair is still implementing the RTI program, as most in the elementary grades are, I will not support those stipends unless the program has been changed to something with a proven track record.

Policy #1540, the Administrator’s Code of Ethics states:

No administrator shall use or attempt to use his/her official position to secure unwarranted privileges, advantages, or employment for him/herself, a member of his/her immediate family, or any other person.
I objected to this policy because it does not preclude an administrator from recommending himself for a paid position to the superintendent.

The teachers union openly discourages its members from competing for stipends if a more senior teacher has demonstrated an interest. If only one person applies for the job, he’ll generally get the job. There’s nothing to prevent an administrator from doing the same.

The present policy creates financial incentives for administrators to hinder the recruitment and interview process to their own benefit. Even if the superintendent is the one ultimately making the recommendation to the board, if only one person applies for the job, he’ll generally get the job.

I am not presently advocating that all administrators be barred from extra-curricular positions. Rather, they should not be given a financial incentive to game the process and recommend themselves to the superintendent. >>> Read more!


Anonymous said...

" this has morphed into the fraudulent practice" - Joe Warren

You respectfully disagree- IS THAT A SERIOUS TITLE TO THIS ARTICLE? A few posts back you accuse teachers of possibly having someone do work for them and now you say teachers are fraudulent... if you disagree that is your right but you are down right slanderous in your words.

I don't get you. What personal vendetta do you have against these people? You are newer to the area and your kids dont and won't use the schools. Have YOU EVER wrote anything good about educators in this town?

It is obviously personal.

Anonymous said...

There is no RTI at the high school. How do you explain the low scores there?

Hold the Pickle said...

"If the teacher believes that a “Walden” education warrants a huge pay raise then I see no reason why he can’t attend online seminars that don’t interfere with his classroom instruction, not to mention the cost savings to the district."

What is your definition of a huge pay raise? And please don't cherry pick from the top of the salary guide.

Didn't you support a huge pay raise for Dr. O'Malley and Ms. Irons?

Will this teacher, who has a "Walden" education, be required to attend the seminar after school hours? Will the District be paying for the cost of the seminar?

Anonymous said...

Here come the union thugs.

Aberdeener said...

Teachers submitting payment vouchers for after-school conversations despite time being allotted during school hours for such conversations is a fraudulent practice.

The high school initiated a lunch program to help students at risk of failing the HSPA. Two-thirds of their parents pulled them from the program.

The pay raises for credits/degrees are the same regardless of "step" on the salary guide.

BA+30 - $5,000
MA - $7,180
MA+30 - $9,500
Doct - $14,000

The district will reimburse teachers for online seminars but I would expect them to take online seminars after-hours to avoid the expense and interruption of using a substitute teacher.

Anonymous said...

Great article on pay to play on todays

Anonymous said...

I believe that your "policy" objection is a direct attack on Martucci. You are so transparent. Can you even site an example (excluding tuc) where an administrator gets a stipend?

Aberdeener said...

The teachers union actively dissuades teachers from applying for stipends if there's already a "preferred" candidate. What's to stop an administrator from doing the same?

As for Mr. Martucci, he doesn't need to recommend himself. Dr. O'Malley knows Mr. Martucci well and doesn't need a recommendation to make his decision.

Anonymous said...

But can you give an example of an administrator, besides tuc, who collects a stipend... Ok then, I will continue to think that your objection is targeted and political.

Aberdeener said...

In my industry, we have a joke for people with your mindset - Everybody backs up his computer the day after his hard drive crashes.

The point is to prevent an abuse of authority. Just like you lock your doors at night even though you've never been burglarized, so should we.

Hold the Pickle said...

Why didn't you answer the question about providing Dr. O'Malley and Ms. Irons huge pay raises?

Didn't they receive a huge pay raise for just doing their jobs?

Why is it acceptable to provide a huge pay raise to administrators but not to teachers?

Aberdeener said...

I support merit-based raises and bonuses for all employees. Let me know when you get the teachers union to agree.

Instead of spending nearly $2 million a year on credits and degrees that have no correlation to classroom performance, why not use that money to reward good teachers?

Anonymous said...

According to you and your attitude, I have come to believe that you think there are no good teachers -

According to you - they are liars, cheats, and fraudulent.

You have a personal agenda and its obvious as day.

Anonymous said...

"I am not presently advocating that all administrators be barred from extra-curricular positions."

With regard to the above...

Take this from someone who has lived in this community a lot longer than you and someone who's children actually went through MARSD: If you ever do propose the above, you will never serve on any board/commitee/council in this community ever again. You will have 2,000 hits a day on this blog, and they won't be from the 25 or so clowns that support your electronic circus. You will wake the ire of the people who actually grew up here, have lived here their entire lives and have done more for this community than you and your miscreant blog-followers could do in the next twenty years.

I do not say this in mean-spirits. As you are relatively new to town, have some excellent ideas, and clearly care about what is going on, I wish you success. However, do not pick fights you cannot win. There are a universe of people in this community that dwarf the 25 or so cremudgeons who cheer you on this blog. If you really want to change things, get the community-at-large on your side and implement the great ideas you post on here from time to time.

Three of the four things you posted here are excellent reforms. The battle for the fourth will destroy any chance you have to implement the first three. May prudence guide you, Joey.

Anonymous said...

Simple right and wrong should be the judge. An administrator, especially Athletic Director, should not be the football coach. Time does not allow for both jobs and they should be separated. Sure all his loyal minions will defend him but many who are not as loud and obnoxious don't feel it is fair to the programs they participate in at the same time as football. Someone, do what is right for the students, not what is right for him.

Extra Cheese Please said...

Your post quoting pay raise amounts on the salary guide is a misrepresentation of actual monies received per year. For example, your numbers appear to show that a teacher who earns an MA+ 30 will receive a $9,500 pay raise. That is incorrect. That amount is an increase from the same step in the BA column. No teacher would jump from a BA to an MA+30 within a year. Most likely, this change in columns would occur over the course of several years. Therefore, a teacher who completes an additional 30 credits of coursework above their held MA would only receive a $2,320 raise for that year. When you break that down into 20 paychecks with taxes, the raise results in less than $100 per pay check. I hardly think this seems like the "huge pay raise" you have been criticizing.

Hold the Pickle said...

Excellent point!

Anonymous said...


Remember a few posts backs when you made a comment regaridng a teacher's fear of retaliation? I think you made some comment such as geez- when was the last time a teacher in the state lost his tenured job. Teachers fear more than a loss of a job. They fear retaliation from admininstation making their lives more difficult such as involuntary transfers. I suppose some will say they are lucky to have a job- and that is true-just not the point. Think it doesn't happen? Just happened this past year at the HS when a tenured teacher was critical of Ruscavage.

Anonymous said...

"I support merit-based raises and bonuses for all employees. " Why would you give Dr. O'Malley a substantial raise when he would have continued to do the same work without a raise? After all, he did have a 3 year contract for a specific amount, did he not? Was there a performance clause in his contract for the first year? How do you know that test scores wouldn't have gone up this year with or without our new superintendent? Maybe RTI was a factor in test score increases. Wouldn't it have been more prudent financially to wait until the END of his 3 year contract to judge his performance? And what if scores go down the next 2 years? Are there any reprisals (pay cuts)? Answers please.

Aberdeener said...

Extra Cheese,

I don't understand you're point. The original reference was to the presumption that a "Walden" education warranted a "huge pay raise". If a teacher gets his MA+30, he earns an extra $9,500 per year. What's the difference whether it takes him 4 years or 10 years to get his MA+30? It's still $9,500 per year for a Walden education.

As for retaliation, the case you're referencing was brought to the board's attention prior to the transfer. I do not believe that teacher was transferred for political reasons. Additionally, that teacher later did something I consider outrageous that completely undermines any claims the teacher's made in the past or will in the future. Which is a shame because, inside the classroom, the teacher is a fine teacher.

Also, I hardly consider a transfer to be a terrible thing. Same pay, same benefits, same hours. Granted, you have to make new lesson plans and acclimate to a new environment but it's hardly the retribution we witness in the private sector.

Anonymous said...

How come you never answer the Dr. O'Malley and Ms. Irons questions? Could it be that you voted to give them a raise when you did not know all the information that led to the 0% tax increase?

Aberdeener said...

The principle behind merit pay is to provide an incentive for future performance, not to reward past performance. I've gone through the math. If there's even a 5% chance that, absent the promise of future raises, we wouldn't see a repeat performance, then it's fiscally prudent to give the raises.

Our capitalist society is founded upon the premise that people are more productive when they can enjoy the fruits of their labors.

We're talking about $30,000 in raises. So far, the administration has cut about $200,000 since June. When was the last time you saw major budget cuts that didn't impact services?

Anonymous said...

Face facts:

The Aberdeener HATES this district. He hates those who do any good by our students (and God forbid get paid to do so) and MOST OF ALL TEACHERS....

I just dont get it. Why run for BOE of a district you hate so much? Doesn't it get aggravating going to several meetings for a institution you despise?

Yout just moved here a few years back and your kids don't and won't go to the schools. Why are you so angry?

Do not confuse CHANGE with ANGRY AGENDA.

Dont get me wrong, I admire the fact you ran for the BOE and you do make some decent points about your observations and also about the town.

I just hope you don't use the BOE as a stepping stone for something bigger. If you wanted a seat on the town council you should have run for that. But your grand standing is just making this educational environment more and more NEGATIVE month by month.

Take a step back Joey, and look at it. The negativity you and your blog spews at times does no good for anyone except make a name for you.

The funny thing is, I have no personal interest in this. My kids are long graduated and doing quite well coming a district you have so many problems with. So as a parent, who has no current students, imagine how those who have a vested interest feel?

Anonymous said...

"Extra Cheese" says that Aberdeener "misrepresents" facts. I agree and add that he speaks the same board member gibberish that he used to accuse BARZA of, as evidenced by this quote... " I've gone through the math. If there's even a 5% chance that, absent the promise of future raises, we wouldn't see a repeat performance, then it's fiscally prudent to give the raises" Whoooooo is he trying to impress with such fancy circular talk. If he gets any better at it, then he can run for mayor, as least there it would not matter that he doesn't give a hoot about our children.

Aberdeener said...


Who among the school board, past or present, do you believe was a great advocate for the children? I've only been on the board 7 months but let's match records and see who fights for the children.

Anonymous said...

Where do I begin?

Test scores in the basement for years

Millions spent with minimal results

Turf field and lighting $2M

Yet many seek to blame the Aberdeener


Did he cause the above?

He has been on the school board for some time yet is attacked for not having children in the system. I am thankful he is there to represent those parents who pay their taxes and then pay for private school due to all or part of the above. Those of us without children in the system deserve a voice. We seem to be outcasts and devils for wanting our tax dollars spent wisely and with significant results. Their is after all enough blame for the mistakes, programs and misspending by our local educational leadership as well as our town councils.

Think about it.

Anonymous said...

Hey, "tests scores in the basement" so you think that spending 9.3% on raises is a wise use of your taxes monies. Because that is what Aberdeener voted for. Even the most uninformed mind can see that that is just plain wrong in these times, and of no practical use to the children.

Anonymous said...

Your idea of rewarding future performance instead of proven past performance is what Wall Street does every day and look at the fiscal mess we are in because of it. You must reward past performance to inspire a continuance into the future (A carrot per se). If you are going to say Dr. O'Malley saved us money it's because all the big expenditures (roofs, energy saving windows and lighting, paving, field improvements,special programs,etc.) were all done by prior administrations.

Aberdeener said...

I can't believe any of my readers are this ignorant or clueless so these last two comments must have some other intent.

We don't reward future performance. We create incentives for future performance. If you're a parent, then you know what I'm talking about. You reward good behavior to encourage future good behavior. If you don't believe in rewarding good behavior, try it on your kids first and let me know how it works out for you.

As for the children, have you forgotten that their parents are taxpayers too? Since awarding $30,000 in raises, we've cut around $200,000 in expenses without any service cuts and more savings are in the works, not to mention additional improvements in curricula and services.

When we cut expenses and improve services, we're helping everybody, kids included. When you object to merit raises in the face of massive improvements, you're not being penny-wise, pound foolish. You're just being foolish.

Anonymous said...

They were done improperly by past administrations is the fact. Just like the SCC in Trenton where government officials failed to watch the money and billions were wasted.

The saddest and most telling thing is the fact that no one from the SCC was indicted and sent to jail. What they did and what some of our past leadership has done with our money is also a crime.

That is the truth.

Anonymous said...

Being a parent, I do understand what you are saying about rewarding positive behavior- but a little incentive not a $30,000 incentive. He cut $200,000 and then received his raise (positive reward)- now lets see how much he saves us this year. I guarentee the budget will go up and taxes will go up. Are you going to give him another little positive reward then? How much this time????

Aberdeener said...

O'Malley, Glastein, and Irons got a combined $30,000 raise. Notwithstanding academic achievements, they cut $600,000 before the raise and then an additional $200,000 after the raise.

The board awarded O'Malley an extra $9,000 above his guaranteed $3,000 raise. So, instead of $9,000, what would be an appropriate reward considering the amounts saved, the educational achievements, and that we don't want O'Malley to leave? (O'Malley still earns less than most of his peers overseeing similarly sized districts.)

Anonymous said...


Would you mind posting Dr. O's CONTRACT, so that we can review to determine where the "incentives" are stated within the CONTRACT? BTW, why don't you post the definition of "CONTRACT" also.

Aberdeener said...

A contract is any legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties.

Dr. O'Malley's contract is on the school website's superintendent's page.

The relevant clause is on page 6 - Minimum Salary Increase. It reads "Additional annual increases beyond the minimum increase set forth above may be provided based upon the superintendent's performance at the sole discretion of the board."

Extra Cheese Please said...

You seem to have discounted my point about teacher raises by simply ignoring the clarification I presented about the reality of the “huge raises” teachers receive while continuing to portray your distorted salary amounts/figures as truth. There is no logical situation where a teacher would actually receive a $9,000 pay raise in one year. Let’s try this again and role-play, shall we? Let’s say I am hired on step 1 on the salary guide with only a BA. This puts me on column C and I am making $44,650 per year (Wow! Isn’t that huge salary such a great incentive to go into the teaching profession?). Two years pass (I’m now on step 3) and I’m making $45,250. I have decided to go back to school to obtain my MA. This will surely take me at least two years. However, after about 2 years I have only earned 30 credits which allows me to move from step 5 (where I’m making $45,850) to column D where I’ll make $50,850. But wait…. I’m still looking for that “huge” raise. So I continue my studies and a year later (when I’m on step 6) I complete my program and have earned my MA. Therefore, I remain on step 6 but shift to column E where I earn a whopping $53,330. So let’s recap. It took me six years, $20,000 in college loans (since I obviously went to a reputable school- not an online school) and numerous hours of hard work to improve my knowledge level, all to get a raise of about $9,000. And of course I’m thrilled because now I’m making the big bucks with a large salary of $53,330.

But I think to myself that there must be some additional extrinsic benefits to this profession because I can’t possibly be expected to support myself on this salary. Do I get a laptop? No. A company car? No. A cell phone stipend? No. Summers off at least I ask myself? No, because I need to work over the summer to pay off my college loans. Hmmm…. Then why DID I decide to teach? Then I remember. Because I love children. Because I want to positively affect someone’s life. Because I feel that my enthusiasm and passion for learning will motivate others to advance their own education. Because teaching is a noble profession in which I have the opportunity to influence so many young lives at once. These are the reasons I choose teach. Thankfully, this scenario is not my reality. It would not be possible for me to support a family, pay off student loans, and live on a salary that is not far from the poverty level.

Mr. Warren, I do agree with your sentiment that performance pay has its place in education and is not a futile concept as many believe. Similarly to all other professions, there are superior teachers utilizing highly effective practices and there are ineffective teachers who fail to provide students with a quality education. This is a fact that I am not disputing. I am sure that if you asked any quality teacher about benefits of certain types of merit compensation they would find some appeal about being rewarded for their hard work. Who doesn’t like to be recognized and acknowledged for a job well done? Before this type of program is implemented, however, I acknowledge that there are a... (con't in next post)

Extra Cheese Please said...

(con't from previous post)...plethora of obstacles to overcome and real fundamental problems with this type of pay that are only recently being studied by researchers. For you to state that teachers who receive “huge raises” should be evaluated on performance instead of academic motivation is simply irresponsible and reckless. Your lack of understanding about the complexity of the subject is further demonstrated by your suggestions in past posts to base pay on test scores.

Several people have asked you about your support for the “HUGE” administrative raises and particularly how it correlates to your position about performance pay to no avail. You claimed that your support for those raises (specifically the Supt.) is based on the future goals, motivation, and anticipated outcomes of their actions- or as you put it: “to create incentives for future performance”. How, then, should this same support not be given to teachers who wish to further their expertise since it can be ascertained from the above scenario that motivation is typically not fiscal in nature? (How could it be with the lack of any actual substantial monetary benefit?) Therefore, any avenue a teacher chooses to utilize in order to advance his or her area of expertise should be commended instead of criticized.

Aberdeener said...

Extra Cheese,

A Walden masters is only 30 credits, which can certainly be done in two years. A teacher can complete his MA+30 at Walden in 4 years at a cost (after tuition reimbursements) of $20,000, which he'll make back in about two years.

However, the question is what are we getting in return for the $9,500 raise for that Walden MA+30? Is he a better teacher? I haven't seen any evidence of that. Is it for retention? Absent special circumstances, I would neither hire nor award tenure to a Walden alumnus. So, what are we getting for that $9,500 a year?

Hold the Pickle said...

You say you haven't seen any evidence that a Walden graduate is a better teacher.

What type of investigating have you done?

During your investigation, did you do any comparative analysis between Walden and other institutions?

What criteria did you use while collecting data? Were class size, socioeconomic background, parental input, and student placement considered when evaluating a teacher?

Please be specific. I am eager to evaluate your research techniques.

out of towners laugh said...

There are no techiniques

Joey is right.
He is all knowing.
We are all dunce.

He says Walden is useless and HE MUST be right, and if it could possibly be proven wrong, he would still say he is right.

He has NO IDEA what Walden asks of its students. He has no idea about the curriculum. He has no idea what teachers can get from a Walden education.

HE IS JUST RIGHT, no arguments.

The funny thing is, a Walden curriculum is mostly THE SAME classes other colleges are presenting, the same classes offered at seminars, and many of the same reading materials and books the state is asking teachers to read and/or become familiar with.

Is Walden Harvard or Yale? Certainly not. But time, socio economics, family, extra jobs, and many other factors contribute to why a Walden on line degree is obtained. I read here once before, checked it out, and if RUTGERS accepts Walden, why does Joey keep beating a dead horse? BECAUSE HE IS RIGHT -DAMN IT!!!

I teach in Middletown where some of my colleagues and I read this, and find it funny that a BOE member attacks his own teachers. But Joey is probably happy he has more people he can call "his readers" .... what a joke

Aberdeener said...


I don't need to prove that a masters in education from a no-name, cheap and easy, unranked, virtual school isn't worth $9,500. Let the teachers demanding the raises prove the taxpayers are getting their money's worth.

However, I'll tell you this - I've already cited one national study that a masters in education, on average, doesn't improve student performance and another study demonstrating that knowledge of the material being taught does improve student performance. Yet, nobody in our district with a Waldens degree has a masters in the course material being taught.

I'm familiar with several of our top teachers and none of them have Walden degrees.

As I said, I've seen nothing to demonstrate that a Walden degree is worth the taxpayer's money.

And there's been no scholastic improvement since our teachers began flocking to these cheap and easy online schools.

There are several good online programs. Walden isn't one of them.

No more kool aid said...

Hold the pickle, extra cheese and all you other teachers who are looking to drain the system have swallowed to much of the special sauce. Your union leaders have made you afraid of a person like Mr. Warren who asks questons about abuses to the system. I am out of work with no benefits and no children in this broken system yet you continue to defend your old ways and expect me to pay more. The times have changed for many of us, and thanks in part to the politicians your union money has bought and paid for we are in this predicament together. Raises for whatever reason should not be considered at this time and a substantial contribution to benefits should. Explain to me why in my current situation I should be asked to pay more with no income. I like many others in this town would be happy with a $50,000 a year job. Enough to clothe and feed my family in the home we have lived in for years would be acceptable. Keep up the fight Joey, for people like myself, and keep the kool aid drinkers honest and in the world of reality.

Extra Cheese Please said...

"A Walden masters is only 30 credits, which can certainly be done in two years. A teacher can complete his MA+30 at Walden in 4 years at a cost (after tuition reimbursements) of $20,000, which he'll make back in about two years."

I'm confused by your point. How will a teacher earn an ADDITIONAL $20,000 in 2 years? Sign me up! Maybe my explanation of how the salary guide works was not clear or misread. The point I am making is that teachers do NOT get the large raises you are referring to, and certainly not in a year. You cannot get a $10,000 raise in a year from your current salary. That is the key: current salary. You are making claims of “huge raises” by comparing new salaries to those in the BA column (column C) or alternately put, apples to oranges. Maybe at the next board meeting you should ask your colleagues to explain to you how the salary guide works.

Moreover, yet again you have circumvented the questions presented to you about supporting the large administrative raises. You claim that his raise is based on “the amounts saved, the educational achievements, and that we don't want O'Malley to leave”. Haven’t you been suggesting that there have not been significant achievement gains? Isn’t saving money part of a Superintendent’s job description just like it is part of the job for partner teachers who share a prep period to collaborate as you implied earlier? You often make valid points and take some very interesting positions on educational issues. That being said, this is not one of them. It is obvious that your inability to take a step back and reflect on other viewpoints has hindered any advantageous articulation on this site. You never know, Mr. Warren. You may learn something.

Aberdeener said...

Extra Cheese,

Let's try this -
In year 2, a teacher completes his Waldens Master
In years 3 and 4, he earns $7,180 per year above what he would've earned had he never attended Walden
In year 4, he completes his Walden 30 credits
In years 5 and 6, he earns $9,500 per year above what he would've earned had he never attended Walden

Where is my math off?

Hold the Pickle said...

I find your answer to be unconvincing. You have provided me with no data specific to Matawan Aberdeen. It is simply your opinion and I have to say that there are not many people who are going to follow the opinions of someone who won't even send his own children to the school district.

You claim that you are familiar with some of the top teachers in the school district. What makes these teachers top teachers? Please be specific to teaching techniques, parent communication and involvement, student motivation, and anything else you think is pertinent.

Anonymous said...

I still don't see where Mr. Warren talks about his fellow BOE members who have been around for the past 6 or more years who have voted for things Mr. Warren cannot stand.

When will you be a totally neutral party and tell my why Larry, Gerry, Jan, Chuck, and Dr. G get off with no blame for the ways they have voted in the past. DO YOU GET IT? THEY VOTED FOR the "villain" QUINN's programs!!!!!!!!!!!!! and the field, and the construction, and RTI, and tax increases.... where is that blame????

What, are they changed people now that you are on the BOE?

Anonymous said...

Dear Author !
It doesn't matter!

Anonymous said...

Had a conversation with a VP from the HS this week regarding my son. Whoa- that woman is stoopid!
How in god's name can this district make any academic progress when you have brainless adminstrators.

Anonymous said...

I want to quote your post in my blog. It can?
And you et an account on Twitter?