On the one hand, the Journal's heavy hitters are rightfully perturbed that the results from a survey of APD union members were being hidden from the process, (and from public knowledge).
The union claims ownership of the truth and a need to hide it to prevent retaliation and retribution against any of their members who chose to speak truth to power.
The editors and I believe, the (ethically) redacted results should be surrendered to the process (and ultimately, according to the Public Records Act, to public knowledge).
The editorial upset doesn't make any sense, unless the editors believe survey results have value, that they are important and useful.
"... officers are the ones who have to put policies into practice, who know firsthand what works and what doesn’t on the street. Why ask for their insight and then keep it secret?"Ignoring the insight of those who police the streets
"... does not serve Albuquerque or the members of its police force."
On the other hand and in stark contrast, the editors are giving their cronies in the leadership of the APS, a complete bye for taking no surveys at all. The leadership of the APS is yet to give a one of them, the opportunity to respond to what's going on in APS classrooms and in particular, what's going on at Rio Grande and Ernie Pyle.
Among them, APS teachers have more than 100,000 years of personal insight into what works and what doesn't work in classrooms and schools.
APS has an entire department dedicated to the gathering and manipulation of data. They have never surveyed teachers. They never ask them for their honest input about what is wrong in their schools; there is no subordinate evaluation of administrators.
Did the Journal interview teachers about the results of the spending of millions of extra tax dollars at these schools, or students, or their parents? Did the Journal go to those " ... who know first hand what works and what doesn't (in classrooms)? for their input? Did they give students or teachers the opportunity to speak without fear of retribution and retaliation?
Worse than the editors' omission is their commission; a biased report on the results nearly $5M bought.
For their information, they went directly to the APS administrators most responsible for success or failure, and asked them how they're doing. The utter disregard for appearance of an egregious conflict of interests in "a source" is frightening.
The Journal quotes one student twice. She couldn't be more thrilled with what the Brooks administration has done to fix her school. She did not reflect upon, or was not asked to reflect upon, the fact that test scores and graduations rates remain essentially unchanged.
"Officials" provided for one citation.
The APS senior administrator most accountable for improvement at those schools, Eddie Soto, was interviewed. He was quoted at least five times in her report. We glean from him and Heinz, he's doing a fine job.
The senior administrator on site, Principal Yvonne Garcia was quoted at least four times. Again, she and the Journal agree, she's doing a fine job as well.
No interviews with parents, teachers or students with divergent opinions were reported. None will be scheduled. In especially with four board members running for re-election and depending upon the establishment media to make no waves.
No comments:
Post a Comment