Early Voting Has Started-- VOTE YES FOR KATY ISD BOND!

Early voting has started.  Since this is a November election, you will vote at the early voting sites OF YOUR COUNTY. 
Information about Early Voting Locations in Harris, Ft. Bend and Waller Counties is HERE.  GO VOTE!


Last Monday, the School Board discussed what would happen if this bond is defeated.  The Chronicle has a headline in today's paper saying Katy is "ready if voters say no".  YIKES!!  

Of course the District and its staff and teachers will "rise to the occasion".  That does NOT mean the schools and student experience won't change.  There WILL be changes:  Overcrowded schools will have to be the priority, as the district is required by law to educate every child who shows up.  That means Operating Fund money (the same pot of money that pays teacher salaries) will have to be used to do things like buy additional portables, rent and build-out additional facilities like shuttered retail space to be classrooms or offices, rent out-of-district stadiums for sporting events, and buses will have to be re-directed to take children to those out-of-neighborhood facilities.  Older schools will not be renovated so will continue to serve their students poorly (e.g. Memorial Parkway Jr. High) or not as securely (e.g. Mayde Creek HS).  Secondary teachers will not be assigned a classroom and will have to have their planning period in the teacher's lounge.  While it ensures every inch of space will be used every minute of the day, why would a talented teacher stick around if they are not even given a desk?  
This bond was carefully crafted to NOT require a tax increase.  The risk is a tiny 1/2 cent per $100 valuation.  To put it in "homeowner terms", we are basically borrowing against our equity, with no increase in our mortgage payments. 
If you, like so many people, moved to this district BECAUSE of the wonderful schools, why would you risk the value of your home by voting to change those schools dramatically for the worse??       

The School Bond vote is near the end of the ballot.  Be sure to scroll down and cast your vote!

I will vote "YES" on the Katy ISD School Bond, and encourage you to, as well.  I served on the Bond Committee and am proud of the package we developed.

This bond will provide:

• Six new schools (1 high school, 2 junior highs, and 3 elementary schools) (47.7% of the bond)
• Six comprehensive renovations of our older schools: Mayde Creek High School, Memorial Parkway Jr. High, and Memorial Parkway, Golbow, Cimarron, and Pattison Elementary Schools (18.1%)
• Additional component replacements at 43 other schools and 3 district facilities. (5.6%)
• Program Support Facilities: An additional stadium and Ag Sciences Center (both scaled back from what was proposed and rejected in the Nov. '13 bond) (10.8%)
• Expansions to Miller Career Center and 5 Junior Highs (4.9%)
• Technology (6.7%)
• Security upgrades (1.7%)
• Other items, including design and planning fees for 2 additional elementary schools, buses, portables, etc. (4.5%)

Of critical importance to the Bond Committee was including as many necessary projects as possible with little or no tax increase risk.  This bond accomplished that goal with an addition potential tax rate increase of 1/2 cent.  Additional facts and information can be found HERE.

I believe we need this bond, and we need it now.  The district has already delayed this bond by over a year, due to concerns at that time about the flagging economy and how that might impact our growth.  Thank goodness those concerns did not come to pass here in Katy— we have growth and plenty of it!  The 70,000th student enrolled this year, and about 3000 new students come to Katy every year.  They come for excellent schools and programs that provide a well-rounded education for our students. The projects in this bond will address that growth, as well as provided badly needed renovations for our older schools. 

How School Boards Work, Part III: Who's the Boss?

Saw a comment in that other blog that Bill Proctor is Alton Frailey's boss.  I'd like to clarify that misconception.  Alton Frailey's boss is the Board of Trustees acting as a body corporate.  Think about how horrible a band would sound if instead of having a single conductor, the brass, percussion, woodwinds, and horns all had separate conductors.  If each section played at different tempos, and the horns wanted to play a waltz instead of a march, the music would be a mess!  State law is pretty smart in this instance:  Having 7 trustees ensures the values of the community are woven into all decisions, but by insisting they act as a single unit, they avoid the total confusion of superintendents getting 7 sets of directions.  


The job of the Superintendent is, in a nutshell, to educate students and manage the resources of the district.  Since Alton Frailey has been in Katy ISD, student test scores have improved, the district continues to win awards for financial management practices, transparency, and for achieving significant student academic growth while keeping spending relatively low, and in 2010 he was awarded Superintendent of the Year for Region IV.  


My hope, as a taxpayer and as a person concerned about the students of this community, is that Alton Frailey will focus his energies and talents on running the district, rather than baby-sitting a board that is dysfunctional because two of its members' goal is to derail the business of the district for an election-time publicity stunt.  I also hope that the board will get its act together before they "distract" this district to disaster.

So, Why DID They Walk Out?

Got a question from Jenni: (read her entire comment on the posting "Proctor and Huckaby Take Their Ball and Go Home")
I'm so confused here I can't make heads or tails, and I'm hoping you can help. Did Proctor and Huckaby walk out because it was inappropriate to take a vote on that issue (offering administrators the 2-year contracts) at THAT TIME, and would it have been possible for them to publicly protest the vote at the time of the meeting? Could they have had the board delay that vote and then stay to take part in OTHER matters? Do you think it's appropriate to ask to grant 2-year contracts to administrators --with cuts coming down the pike (it sounds like Frailey wants to protect his "cronies"-- is THAT the case?)? It's obvious that games are being played, but I'm not familiar enough with how this is supposed to work to make a clear judgment on who is doing what and whether or not it's "o.k."! 
These are great questions!  
Let's take the last question first and talk about the games being played:  P&H absolutely could have stayed and protested the vote at the time of the meeting.  In fact, that is their duty as Trustees.  A lot of other business needed to be handled besides the 2-year contracts.  From the agenda and my experience, I would guess there were a lot of specific terminations and "RILT" (Resign in lieu of termination) for teachers who are not doing a good job.  Those have to happen at the end of the contract cycle, and by a certain date under Texas law.  You are absolutely right: games are being played here... and when P&H play those games, it derails the business of running the district.  

So, why did they do it that way (walk out rather than vote "no" or abstain)?  This is my opinion:  I don't think it would have changed the outcome of the vote even if all 7 Trustees were present.  So what was their point?  It was for the Theatrics.  We have an election coming up, and they wanted everyone to remember how angry everyone was last year about teacher layoffs, because that is what got them elected, and they are desperate to have two more buds on the board.  Walking out and stealing the quorum wouldn't have changed the outcome, but it gave them an opportunity to get the attention of the press.  On Tuesday, Mrs. Majors sent an inflammatory e-mail to teachers that indicated she and Mrs. Blackman are the only ones running who care about teachers.  Coincidence?  I doubt it... To consider this further:  who REALLY has the best interests of the teachers at heart?  Not P&H: they chose to hold up the contracts of over 4000 teachers with a stunt.  

About voting that night versus later:  It was completely appropriate to vote on contracts at that meeting, and if we put it in context of the school year, it makes better sense.  This is the time of year that teachers and administrators start looking for new positions, because they are all on contracts that keep them from doing it in the middle of the year.  If teachers and administrators are not getting a contract this time of year, it makes jobs in other districts look that much more appealing.  It is the piece of paper they have to have to buy a home as it shows they have employment.  Holding up those contracts does them a great disservice.  


Educator Contracts 101:  All professional staff work under contract.  There are two kinds; "term" and "probationary".  Probationary contracts are usually given to people in the first year or two of a new assignment.  Once they have a "term" contract, they basically have a never-ending job, because in order to fire them, the district has to have documented cause.  In addition, it is very expensive to let a term-contract teacher go because they have  the right to a number of hearings, which are very expensive for the district.  That was why the teachers who were given pink slips last year were probationary-contract teachers, because if the district had let go term teachers and they all pursued hearings, it could have cost the district millions. 


P&H would have you believe everyone working in the admin building get the 2 year contracts, while those on campuses only get one-year.  NOT TRUE.  Of all the "administrator" contracts, only 80-ish are 2-year contracts.  With 50+ campuses, the vast majority went to principals, and the remainder went to heads of departments, like the chief of police or head of operations or accountability/assessment, etc. Here's why 2-year contracts are offered to some administrators:  Who gets one is driven by supply and demand.  There are few people who can do the job of a campus principal or head a department, and they are in greater demand.  By giving those folks 2-year contracts, it locks them in and protects the district from loosing an asset that the district developed and invested in!  How many administrators do you know who left us to find a bigger job at another district because KISD trained them so well!  Tying them to a two-year contract helps to keep them at work here.  It's not about protecting cronies; it's protecting an asset of the district.  


Tragedy is, reviewing the POLICY of giving 2 year contracts now, while the State funding is so uncertain, is a good idea; however I've been told that there was no attempt by P&H to put that question on the agenda  One other Trustee has told me privately he would have supported putting that question on the agenda, but not to hold up the awarding of all the teacher contracts.  But P&H didn't do that.  But it doesn't matter if Bill Proctor has a good ideas or not, if he presents them to the press rather than the board.  His value as a board member is diminished because everyone with any sense is reluctant to deal with him when he chooses to do the business of the district in INK.  

This weeks's school board work-study meeting was interesting, in a depressing sort of way.  The contentious atmosphere is turning into a circus, and no student is being educated nor any district property being maintained nor any goal-setting being done because of the circus.  Sad.  


Last week's meeting was capped off by School Board President Joe Adams attempting to offer a report to the other board members that he had tasked Mr. Frailey to produce.  Dr. Proctor interrupted with a Point of Order and demanded a Legal Opinion interpreting the Open Meetings Act.  Basically, he wanted to shut down any conversation about the report.  Since Mr. Adams wasn't offering it for discussion but just to hand out the report in written form, there was no conversation to shut down, but here is a big picture question:  Why is Dr. Proctor opposed to the discussion of things?  I thought he was all about transparency and fiscal responsibility?  Instead, he is demanding a lawyer be paid to offer an opinion to shut down discussion?  Hmm.  


An aside:  Sometimes I feel I've fallen through the Looking Glass:  Several months ago, the Board took up 2 questions: should bond "savings" be used to build an additional elementary school ($22 million-ish) and should the tax office be outsourced to the counties (about a $60,000 question).  The "fiscal conservatives" on the board were all over the small potatoes question, and it was Joe Adams and Rebecca Fox who put the kibosh on building a new school that we don't really need right now.  Thank you to them for continuing to steward my tax dollars...Did the other "news" blog report that?  No....  


Here is my main point:  All this spitting and spewing is not good for kids.  Frailey & Board: please, please, please:  Find the BIG PICTURE (student success) and keep your eye on the ball.  The report that was prepared by Mr. Frailey (it's on the KISD website) is over 60 pages long and must represent HOURS and HOURS of staff time, to defend a situation that two errant and big-mouthed board members have created.  The contentiousness in the Board Room is like pouring molasses on the Administration and that WILL impact students.  If I may mix my metaphors:  Stirring the pot is good for entertainment, but if everyone is rowing in a different direction, don't be surprised if the boat capsizes.  Do NOT be contentious just for political gain.  


Furthermore, that molasses isn't sweet:  Everyone from our highest performing administrators to the janitors will be looking for a more hospitable work-place.  Once they leave, who will replace them?  Or do the work?  And that molasses will continue to run-- right onto campuses, and then it will REALLY impact student success.  I know Dr. Proctor is very anxious that another "reformer" get elected in May, so that he can have "the power".  But to what END???  Yikes!  Have a goal, for heaven's sake!  And please let it be about students, and not power for power's sake...