Oma on Board

Auditgate lands in Martinez' lap

Blogger Joe Monahan published an email this morning, link, that built a pretty good case for holding Governor Susana Martinez accountable for the fraudulent New Mexico Finance Authority audit.

The email came to Monahan from a "Senior Gator" and read;

The buck stops at the Governor's office. No matter how much finger pointing is going on, the NMFA is controlled by Martinez appointees. The Board includes four members of her cabinet, some of whom attended very few meetings. Furthermore, she changed almost all the other members so that 8 out of 11 NMFA board members are her appointees. The Board failed badly in its fiduciary responsibilities. The President of the NMFA, Richard May, is her designate as well.

S/he makes a compelling argument.

Will accountability in the scandal ever actually reach the Governor? Not likely, which is why New Mexico state government is riddled with incompetence and corruption. It is only the underlings whose heads ever roll; never the people who were supposed to watching them closely enough to prevent scandals before they happen.

Governor Susana Martinez will not be held accountable for appointing a whole bunch of people to a job they were unable or unwilling to perform.

Shit, does not roll uphill.

photos Mark Bralley

APS students sagging; so what?

For as long as there have been fun seeking children and fun spoiling adults, adults have been setting rules and children have been breaking them. It is to be expected.

There are different kinds of disobedience; deliberate and inadvertent. Inadvertent disobedience isn't the problem. A kid forgetting gum is not allowed, will get rid of the gum when they are reminded of the rule. The real problem is children, students, who deliberately break the rules.

We are no longer talking about chewing gum.

We are talking about bringing and using drugs and weapons at school. We are talking about intimidation and bullying. We are talking about chronically disruptive students who destroy educationally efficient environments.

There are two kinds of deliberate disobedience; sneaky and brazen. Sneaky disobedience implies some respect for the rules, those who enforce them, or at least some fear of the consequences for getting caught breaking them. Brazen disobedience is a kid standing in your face, telling you, you can't tell them what to do, even at school.

Sagging is brazen disobedience; deliberate, in your face defiance. Anyone who thinks you can find success in a school where students are allowed to defy the authority of adults is wrong.

I never once had to stop teaching because a kid was sagging. Those times when I did have to stop teaching to deal with a discipline issue, it was a kid who didn't think s/he had to follow rules or submit in any other way, to the authority of adults. It was their attitude more than their misconduct.

This will end one of two ways; saggers will or will not comply with Brooks' edict. Brooks will either provide certainty in likelihood meaningful consequences for defiant saggers, consequences that will actually end their willful disobedience, or he will fold in the face of their relentless resistance.

When APS Winston Brooks decided to pick another fight with saggers, he picked a fight he hasn't the stomach to win.

Ask any teacher, ask any adult who works with students, when has the senior administration in APS, ever provided certain and substantial consequences for deliberately disobedient students? Brooks himself, counts student insubordination and defiance of authority as one of the least consequential of student misconduct; a level one (of three) offense.

The issue is not kids breaking rules, it is the permission of prohibited behavior; making rules and then not enforcing them. The issue is of schools getting further out of control instead of less.

There's a reason the leadership of the APS doesn't keep, falsifies, or hides data on student discipline and its effect on individual and collective student learning and performance, link.

There's a reason Kent Walz and the Journal won't investigate and report upon student discipline in the APS.

photo Mark Bralley

Does APS Board back the new sagger policy; do they even know about it?

My cursory research into the creation of a Procedural Directive, link, prohibiting "sagging" indicates the new administrative ban on sagging may come as as big a surprise to APS School Board Members as it will to saggers showing up at school on Monday with their butts hanging out.

Yeah, we're sagging. So whadya gonna do about it?

I went looking for some evidence that the board actually understood what they were agreeing to when they approved the procedural directive banning sagging, and found none.

The Board is charged with policy making, not procedural directive approval, so the opportunity to provide "feedback" on an administrative initiative doesn't carry legal weight. Still, there is no indication I could find, that they even discussed the actual sagging issue. It looks as though then Board Member Robert Lucero motioned (sic) for approval of a bunch of consent items and the board went along.

If we had a newspaper that would investigate and report upon student discipline issues, they could interview board members for their individual reactions to reopening hostilities between saggers and adults on campus. If only ...

I suspect the reactions will be quite different when saggers and school board members find out about the prohibition.

Saggers will be greatly annoyed, insisting they have a right to dress however they want, and further insisting "they can't throw us all out!" They will push back, without consequence, until the adults stuck with enforcing the ban, give up.

Board members reactions will fall into two groups based on their experience with the first and unsuccessful attempt to prohibit sagging, circa late 80's early 90's. The new members, those who
didn't go through the first experience may think APS Supt Winston Brooks has a great new idea to regain control over students at school. The more experienced members will remember how badly the first attempt failed and will be perplexed that it will be tried again under nearly identical circumstances; no buy in from anyone except administrators who will expect teachers to do all the heavy lifting in enforcing the ban.