Standard

2012Sun20May

Feed Stock: Teachers and Personnel Under Wardynski

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (4) | TrackbackFiled in polityTags: dr. casey wardynski, feed stock, teaching

You know, I speak in public settings on a regular basis; every teacher does. As such I tend to be forgiving when I hear a public official offer up a slip of the tongue. Anyone who speaks regularly is going to eventually say something in a way that isn’t appropriate.

So when George W. Bush claimed, “Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?” I chuckled and moved on. When Barack Obama discussed his bowling game with Jay Leno by saying, “No, no. I’ve been practicing. I bowled a 129. It’s like, it was like Special Olympics, or something,” I was surprised at his insensitivity, but I let it go without comment (although I was pleased when he called Timothy Shriver the chairman of Special Olympics to apologize).

But sometimes our slips reveal more about our inner thinking than we would like to acknowledge. Freud said this in Psychopathology of Everyday Life in 1901 when he argued that, “What we observe in normal persons as slips of the tongue gives the same impression as the first step of the so-called ‘paraphasias’ which manifests themselves under pathologic conditions.”

In other words, sometimes a slip isn’t a just a slip. I think that we have a situation like this here.

On Thursday night Dr. Wardynski was introducing the newly selected “Teachers on Special Assignment” that he’s been discussing publicly for the past couple of months. Here’s what he had to say:

These individuals were selected through a rigorous process, uh, by a district level committee of highly effective principals and teachers, to serve over the next two years as Teachers on Special Assignment in elementary schools, and uh, P-8s across our district. They will become part of the feed stock of future school leaders to serve in our district for years to come. We congratulate them and thank them for standing forward to assume the mantel of leadership.

Later in the meeting during the “intimidating” citizens comments, Dr. Wardynski shook his head no when it was pointed out that he had said this.

You know, this slip, by itself, would be meaningless. But when you combine this slip with other comments that Dr. Wardynski has made in the past, the meaning starts to become clear.

As is common of Broad Foundation graduates, Dr. Wardynski regularly refers to teachers, staff, and basically anyone other than himself and his friends as “Human Capital.” Here’s a slide that was produced by LEANFrog at the behest of the Superintendent where the double standard becomes quite clear. You’ll note the juxtaposition of the “Strong Executive Leadership Team” and the need for “Human Capital Flexibility.” (You’ll also not that accountability is assigned to “Staff for Operational Performance” but not to the “strong executive leadership team.”)

Again, if these were just words, none of this would matter. But on Wednesday, May 16, 2012, teachers across the district were called out of their classrooms to the principal’s office to be informed by the principal, often with Mr. Al Lankford in attendance, that they were being transferred to other schools in the district.

At one school, the teachers were told to bring their classes with them to the principal’s office, to have their students wait in the hallway, unattended, while the teacher was informed that she would be moved at the end of the year to another school in the district.

During the special called board meeting on Monday, May 21, 2012 at 8:00am, I suppose that these decisions will be approved by the board during their Human Resource Report and a “business operations matter.”

Teachers don’t matter. Tenure doesn’t matter. Seniority doesn’t matter. Need doesn’t matter. All that matters is that the superintendent has decided to move teachers and principals around.

Feed stock doesn’t deserve human decency.

Feed stock doesn’t need a voice in their own future.

Feed stock certainly doesn’t know what might be or might not be best for it’s students.

Feed stock only needs to be flexible and accountable and to do what it is told to do by the “Strong Executive Leadership Team.”

You know, you may not be convinced by Freud. That’s fine. The first time I heard about the Freudian Slip, I didn’t attribute its insight to Freud either. In fact, Freud himself once said, “Everywhere I go, I find that a poet has been there before me.”

In the case of the Freudian Slip, he was right. In this case that poet was Jesus.

You brood of vipers! How can you speak good things, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. –Matthew 12:34

Dr. Wardynski views educators as test proctors. Skill, talent, and art aren’t necessary. Feed stock doesn’t ask why. His heart is speaking clearly on this matter.

2012Sun22Apr

Firing and Hiring Principals

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (6) | TrackbackFiled in polity, venomTags: dan meier, dr. casey wardynski, dr. jennie robinson, eli broad, proact search, Ray Landers

So the superintendent has been on a hiring binge of late for principals. He has also been actively firing and moving current principals out of their positions and into new ones without preamble, preparation, or pause.

To what end?

Well, as with everything the superintendent does, these moves are entirely about control. In order to control the district, he must control the teachers and employees. For that to occur he must control the schools, and the schools are under the control of the principals.

So, first you threaten all of them by saying that all of their jobs are on the table. Those who can retire, probably will.

Then you actively move principals out of the schools they are currently serving and into new, increasingly difficult situations as he has done with Leslie Esneault by calling it a promotion.

And you do the same with a principal who you moved into her current position less than a year ago as with Ava Waters-Maze.

And of course, you fire everyone you can, like Chad Laqua and Kurus Jamison, even if you were singing their praises just eight months ago.

All of this to establish control over a system. To make the system ready to be remade in Eli Broad’s image and idea of what education should be.

As a prelude to all of this, you hire PROACT Search to conduct “six to ten national searches” for suitable principals to replace all those you’re firing or “promoting.” Yes, PROACT Search has direct ties to Eli Broad supported activities. What of it?

So we pay PROACT to conduct a “national search that we couldn’t conduct on our own” $11,000 (with up to $2,000 per search to cover expenses) for every candidate that they find.

To date, we’ve paid PROACT a total of $77,999.99 according to the district’s check registry since September of 2011.

Here are the actual links if you want to check the numbers for yourself:

February 2012: $13,000.00 (Pg. 4)

February 2012: $26,000.00 (Pg. 29)

December 2011: $5,500.00 (Pg. 3)

November 2011: $14,666.66 (Pg. 31)

October 2011: $7,500.00 (Pg. 24)

September 2011: $11,333.33 (Pg. 32)

By those figures according to the original contract, we should have hired about seven new, “nationally competitive” principals.

We have, insofar as I can tell, hired four principals as a result of a search conducted by PROACT Search. Bet you’ll never guess which four were recommended by PROACT?

Michael Scott Campbell of Fairfax, VA.

Ray Landers, of Attalla, AL.

Dan Meier, of Fairfax, VA.

Paul Bonner, of Charlotte, NC.

So, we’re paying PROACT Search $11,000.00 (plus $2,000.00 expenses) per search to find two new principals from Fairfax, VA., one from Attalla, AL., and one from Charlotte, NC. All four of these new principals were hired with probationary contracts that would establish which school they would be placed at, at a later date. This past Thursday, Wardynski claimed it would be the end of May before these placements would be decided.

One of these contracts, Mr. Meier’s, was rescinded at a specially called board meeting on Thursday, April 12, 2012. Despite Dr. Robinson’s claim that the rescinding of the contract proved that “Dr. Wardynski is doing things in new ways and developing new processes,” the board, on the day they voted to rescind the contract, did not discuss the action at all. They simply voted, as unanimously as they did to approve the contract to rescind it.

Again, there was no public discussion of any of the “new processes” of which Dr. Robinson spoke.

I suppose we’re just supposed to trust her on this. Just as we were supposed to trust her when she praised each and every one of the recommendations Dr. Wardynski has brought to the board.

Note: There is a rumor floating around that Dan Meier wasn’t one of the PROACT Search recommendations. It’s possible that someone saw his name on a PROACT list and said, “we already know about him, so we’re not going to pay for PROACT to recommend him.” Thus, it is possible that it wasn’t PROACT’s responsibility to vet Mr. Meier before he was hired as has been reported. (This despite the fact that both the Board President and Vice-President claimed that PROACT Search did not inform the board that they knew about Mr. Meier’s past.)

If this is in fact the case, this still means that we’ve paid PROACT nearly $80,000 over six months to find exactly three candidates. In other words, we’re paying more than twice the amount that the contract calls for us to pay.

So much for a “new” way of doing business.

And this assumes that the other three all work out.

This is a big assumption where Ray Landers is concerned. Somehow I think once the RSA informs him that this will impact his retirement that he will also quickly discover that he too has a family that he wants to spend more time with (as Merts Center Monitor points out that Dan Meier realized).

By the way, if you’re not following that Blog, you should be.

So that leaves us having sent $80,000 to a Eli Broad connected company to hire two principals, one of whom (Paul Bonner) has already a $1 million dollar Broad Prize (as Bonvillian points out in her article about his hiring).

It’s always nice when Broad Foundation people can keep public money within the Board Foundation Family, isn’t it? I’m sure this should prove to me that Eli Broad cares for my kids nearly as much as I do.

Right?

$80,000 just to find and recommend two principals is an excellent return on investment, supposing that you’re on the receiving end rather than the spending one.

By the way, in case you were wondering why we have to pay our teachers the state minimum salary, we have to free up funding to keep hiring these amazing, awesome contractors to do the work that we already pay the central office to do.

This is why we can’t pay instructional assistants more than they would make working at a fast food joint to work with our children.

Keep this in mind the next time that Dr. Wardynski, or his biggest cheerleader Dr. Robinson, tries to tell you that they are doing all of this, you know, for kids.

;

$80,000 just to find two principals doesn’t sound like it’s going to benefit the kids too much to me. Does it to you?

2012Sat07Apr

Updated: Wardynski’s Principals Forced To Resign

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (9) | TrackbackFiled in polity, venomTags: chad laqua, dan meier, dr. casey wardynski, dr. jennie robinson, huntsville city schools, principals fired, school board

This posting has been updated with additional information below.

I don’t really know Chad Laqua, but I have met him on a couple of occasions at the central office. On both occasions I found him to be open, approachable, and genuinely excited about education. In particular, during a time when much of the central office leadership was giving off the impression of simply not giving a damn about special education, he spoke to me of his passionate belief that every child deserved an education and that every child could learn if given the resources and opportunities.

Needless to say, I liked him.

He was a first year principal placed at a school that was, in a polite assessment, was not doing well. Due to questionable decisions in districting by the board that they seemed unwilling to actually question, a great school was in decline.

Wardynski seemed to like him too.

At the Saturday Board meeting where he was hired, Wardynski singled him out as one of the best of the eight new hires. He regularly described him in the press as “a great new principal.”

And as reported yesterday, Mr. Laqua, along with the new principal at Davis Hills, Kurus Jamison, have offered their resignations to Dr. Wardynski.

As The Huntsville Times reported, Mr. Laqua said, “I had a discussion with the superintendent and he thought that it would be best.”

When Mr. Laqua was hired, Dr. Robinson sung the praises of Dr. Wardynski’s new “process” for hiring principals saying, “I’m impressed with the process you used, and I hope that you continue to use this process.”

If this were such a great process, why wasn’t it used again? Why did all subsequent principal hires get moved inside the superintendent’s office?

As I said, I don’t know Mr. Laqua very well, but my experience with him was positive. It seems now that Dr. Wardynski has changed his mind about him for some unknown reason.

And that’s the problem. While I agree that personnel issues should be dealt with by using a bit more discretion than he typically uses (particularly since he usually uses these issues for his own political advantage), the process by which principals have been evaluated has not been open to the public.

How is it possible that a process that the board was praising for selecting principals just a short eight months ago have resulted in 25% of the new hires that Dr. Wardynski recommended and that the board unanimously and excitedly approved are now being asked/forced to resign?

At the very least, this should raise questions about Wardynski’s ability to hire people. It should raise questions about the way that the board votes to approve new hires recommended by Wardynski.

Update: Need more evidence that Wardynski doesn’t know what he’s doing? Take a look at the Time’s article on the hiring of Ray Landers. As is common whenever he’s caught doing something stupid, “Wardynski did not respond to a request for comment.”

Spinelli defends this strong leadership by saying that this convoluted method of paying both a principal and a consultant saves “$4,000 per year” (which assumes we would actually have paid him $209,090 for two years of service).

Laurie McCaulley, the board president–who did at least respond to questions–said, “we assumed he was retired.”

Indeed. Our school board has done far too much assuming of late and far too little verification.

As such, it should raise questions about some of the new principals that Wardynski has been hiring from Fairfax, VA without giving them specific assignments. (Why do Wardynski’s “national” searches always result in hiring multiple people from the same districts like Aurora, Colorado and Fairfax, Virginia?)

For example, who is Dan Meier, and what vetting process was used to hire a person who was “linked” to a “North Carolina land scam?” It seems that Mr. Meier was eventually cleared, but this does raise questions about the board’s refusal to question the superintendent’s recommendations. They should at least learn to use google in the process of supporting the superintendent’s recommendations. It might save them some embarrassment of having to force resignations on people they hire after a mere eight months of service.

But that would require them to actually do their jobs of representing the public, which is something that they seem fundamentally opposed to doing.

They would rather, as they did on Thursday night, praise Dr. Wardynski for his visionary leadership and his commitment to “communicating with the public.”

(Yes, I am the one laughing in the background when that was said. Sorry, I just couldn’t help myself.)

If the board were actually doing their jobs, maybe we could manage to create some sense of continuity in this district among those teachers and administrators who actually give a damn about students and education.

As it is, they will simply continue to support whatever bad idea Wardynski will bring to them. They will continue to play fruit basket turnover with our children’s schools and lives.

Disruption for the sake of disruption is not helpful.

I wish Mr. Laqua well in his future endeavors, and I thank him for his service to our schools and our country. He had eight months to effect change. Eight whole months.

2012Tue06Mar

Teach For America: Coming to Your Child’s School

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (15) | TrackbackFiled in polityTags: dr. casey wardynski, dr. jennie robinson, huntsville city schools, school board, teach for america

There is an idea in this town that if it isn’t happening at my school, I don’t need to worry about it.

There are a lot of reasons for this. One might be that people are simply too busy to keep up with more than one school. As a parent who has children at two different elementary schools, I really understand this one. Even though the boy and the girl are a mere 19 months apart in age, they’re in separate schools and have been since they started thanks to the decision of the central office to move special needs kids out of their home schools and consolidate them in just a few schools in the system. One school has enough politics, programs, and problems of its own. There just isn’t time to worry about the other schools in the system.

Another reason is that life itself tends to intervene enough. Not only is one school enough, usually, one school is simply too much. There just aren’t enough hours in the day for everything that needs to get done. Work, kids activities, health question, car trouble, cleaning the house, church commitments and occasionally sleeping later than 6am, all take priority over the politics of the school system, especially when my kid’s school isn’t affected.

I’m hopeful that these are the primary reasons why when some bad decision doesn’t directly affect us, we find it easy and frankly justifiable to ignore what’s happening with other schools and other demographics.

If it doesn’t affect my kids, I simply don’t have time to worry about it.

I’m hopeful that’s it. I’m hopeful that it isn’t a deeper, more troubling reason like maybe “those” schools don’t deserve more resources, better buildings or good teachers. I’m hopeful that isn’t the case.

In our recent questions, comments and debates about Teach For America, I’ve occasionally sensed from people the attitude that since TFA isn’t coming to my kids’ schools, it’s not worth being concerned over.

Or as one commentator stated, “Those schools are failing. Anything is better than what they have now.” Beggars can’t be choosers, you know. So, why worry about TFAers?

The best answer is: Because it’s the right thing to do. If my children deserve teachers who are properly trained and committed to the goal of educating our children, then all children deserve similar teachers. If my children deserve teachers who are experienced, and who work everyday to apply that experience to the craft of education, then all children deserve such teachers.

A secondary answer, a more pragmatic answer is: If the district believes it’s okay to put inexperienced, untrained, uncertified “teachers” (who don’t want to be teachers) in one classroom, it can and will place them in every classroom.

But that won’t happen, right? The TFAers are going to schools that are failing, right? They, surely, won’t be placed in my child’s school.

Right?

The best answer that I can give you is that despite nearly a month of asking for details on where the TFAers will be placed, I still haven’t been able to get a straight answer.

No Straight Answers

Straight answers: Why are they so difficult to come by from Huntsville City Schools?

You should know that I am arguing from an absence of evidence in this case. Most of my posts are not based upon my opinions or assessments. I typically stick with exactly what a person says. Arguing from a lack of evidence is fraught with issues, but sometimes a lack of evidence is also telling. I believe that it is in this case as well.

I am convinced that Dr. Wardynski is planning to hire significantly more TFAers in August 2012 than the 30-40 he has previously indicated, and I believe that he is planning to place TFAers at schools all over the district.

Over the past month, I have been asking Dr. Robinson for details concerning the placement plan for the TFAers.

On February 9, 2012, I wrote Dr. Robinson to ask which schools would be receiving the TFA recruits in the district. On the 10th, Dr. Robinson responded:

A placement plan for TFA teachers will not be created until we know which teachers at which schools are retiring. That could be as late a June.

This is as close to a direct answer as I was able to receive, but as I told Dr. Robinson, this answer did not satisfy me. I wrote back to ask:

I am sure that someone in the central office has at least an idea where they are planning to place the TFA recruits starting in August, otherwise it would have been foolish to enter into a contract in November of 2011 to hire at least 30 TFAers [no later than] 14 days before the start of school. This is particularly true since we will have to pay $40 a day for those recruits that do not have positions on the first day of class.

Let me see if I can rephrase my question in such a way that you might be able to provide me with at least the beginnings of an answer.

Which of the schools in the district will not, regardless of retirements or non-renewal status, be receiving these TFA recruits? We can get to the actual numbers and placements later in the process. For now, I’ll be satisfied knowing where they won’t be placed.

Since she wasn’t willing to say how many and where those recruits would be placed, even though we’re going to have to pay at least 30 of them regardless of whether we have a job for them or not, I decided to ask where the TFAers will not be placed. Surely this should be a simple question to answer, right? After all, nearly every public discussion of the TFA contract has implied that these recruits are only placed at schools where the students are at high risk. In other words, TFA typically only serves schools where 70% or more of the school’s population are receiving free or reduced lunch.

Poverty and School Performance

Poverty, in other words, is one of the most accurate indicators we have for the potential success of a student. The lower the family income, the higher the risk for students to underperform in schools. If you want to get into the scientific evidence supporting this thesis, take a look at “Childhood Poverty, Chronic Stress, and Adult Working Memory” by Gary W. Evans and Michelle A. Schamberg. You may see an abstract here.

As I said, TFAers are typically placed at schools with 70% or more of the school’s population receives free or reduced lunch. The contract itself requires this.

Or, as we’ll see in a moment, it implies that this will be the standard.

In response to my follow up question, Dr. Robinson told me later in the day on February 10th:

I have asked the staff to provide the information you requested.

I expected that she would let me know that the TFAers will be placed at our Title I schools here in Huntsville. After all, the Title I schools are Title I schools because of the percentage of students they have receiving a free or reduced lunch. This is why Dr. Wardynski was pushing for students to complete the forms required for the Free or Reduced Lunch at the beginning of the school year. Here’s a listing of the Huntsville City Schools Title I schools as of August 15, 2011.

Butler High
Chapman Middle
Davis Hills Middle
Ed White Middle
Highlands Elementary
Lakewood Elementary
Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary
McDonnell Elementary
Montview Elementary
Morris Elementary
Ridgecrest Elementary
Rolling Hills Elementary
University Place Elementary
West Mastin Lake Elementary
Westlawn Middle

The reason that I started asking about the placement of the TFAers was that there is only one high school on this list. As you’ll recall, Dr. Robinson stated that our TFAers will be primarily placed at secondary schools rather than elementary schools.

The problem is that there just aren’t that many secondary schools on the list.

I asked Dr. Robinson about this when I noticed that Dr. Wardynski was regularly talking about placing TFAers at elementary, middle and high schools. He said as much in his interview with Rocket City Mom on January 31st. When I asked Dr. Robinson about this on February 2nd, she told me that it had in fact “always been the plan” to place TFAers at both elementary and secondary schools.

Still No Answer

About two weeks later, I followed up with Dr. Robinson asking if the “staff” had responded to her request for a listing of schools where the TFAers will not be placed.

She responded on February 22nd:

Any determination about which schools will and will not receive TFA teachers will be made at a later date.

As I stated, the most informative response she gave me was the very first one, we won’t “know” until late June.

I wrote her back quoting the TFA contract which states on page two paragraph I.A.v.:

School District will restrict hiring of each such Teacher to schools where at least 70% of attending students are eligible for free or reduced lunch unless mutually agreed upon by School District and Teach For America.

And so I asked:

The hesitancy on the part of the school district to inform the public which schools will or will not be receiving TFAers leads me to believe that the school district and Teach For America have arrived at a mutual agreement to allow TFAers to be placed at schools where less than 70% of the attending students are eligible for free or reduced lunch. Is this the case?

Has the district and TFA arrived at an agreement to place TFAers at schools where less that 70% of the student population receives a free or reduced lunch? If so, when will this agreement be made public?

What is the new cut-off percentage being employed, and what schools meet that new requirement? If not, why is it so difficult to provide me with a listing of schools that have a percentage of free and reduced lunch that is below 70%?

If they’ve not come up with a new standard by which they will decide where TFAers will be placed, why is it so difficult to give me a straight answer about where they will or won’t be placed?

I’m convinced that Dr. Wardynski and the Board are planning to place TFAers at schools with a standard significantly below 70% free and reduced lunch.

Dr. Robinson’s response did nothing to change my mind. On February 22nd, she wrote back:

We are still determining which schools qualify for TFA teachers.

Unless their standard of 70% free and reduced lunch has changed, why would they need to be “still determining which schools qualify?

Why is the district unable to communicate the criteria by which they will decide which schools will receive and which schools will not receive the TFA recruits?

Can You Think of a Reason?

The only reason I can think of is that the district is planning to use TFAers are significantly higher levels than the contract calls for (30 or more) and significantly higher than the number that Dr. Wardynski shared with Dr. Robinson via email when I asked about the cost of the contract (40).

Dr. Robinson’s hesitancy to provide me with a simple and direct answer combined with Dr. Wardynski regular claims that, “Many people who think they were going to be tenured will not,” leads me to one and only one conclusion: Dr. Wardynski is planning to hire significantly more TFAers than he has revealed publicly.

The contract is loaded with clues to this effect.

First, there is not an upper limit to the number of TFA recruits hired by our system (30 or more, 40 or more).

Second, the contract allows for both parties to change the placement rule of at least 70% or more free and reduced lunch by mutual consent. Since TFA Alabama would love to place record numbers of recruits in Huntsville, and since Dr. Wardynski is constantly raising the number and cheerleading for TFA, what, other than public opinion, is to stop both parties from raising the numbers?

Nothing. Nothing at all.

Sometimes we speak loudest, Dr. Robinson, by saying nothing at all. Right now, the district’s silence is screaming that they’re planning to hire far more than 30 or 40 TFAers. The district’s silence is screaming that they’re planning to place these recruits at all of the schools in the district.

So What’s A Parent To Do?

Ask Questions.

As you can see, my questions often go unanswered. If you think these are valid questions, ask them yourself. Perhaps you will receive a different answer than I have received.

When your child is assigned a classroom teacher for the fall, request that the school provide you with a completely and detailed accounting of that teacher’s training. You may do this by filing out a “Parent’s Right-To-Know” request. This form will advise you concerning your teacher’s and paraprofessional’s credentials.

If your children are being taught by a teacher teaching under a “provisional” or “emergency” status, if his or her undergraduate degree is in something other than Education, and he or she doesn’t have a master’s degree in Education, I would advise you to request that your child be transferred out of that teacher’s classroom.

All of our children deserve the best opportunity to succeed in their education. I, for one, do not want my children taught by a “teacher” who doesn’t want to be a teacher. TFA “teachers” don’t want to be teachers. We should make it easy for them to do something else.

2012Sun26Feb

Culture of Change?

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (13) | TrackbackFiled in polity, venomTags: aaron king, dr. casey wardynski, dr. jennie robinson, huntsville city schools, school board

On Thursday, February 16th, Dr. Wardynski began to make public a process that he started in private in October with the hiring of Bryon Headrick of LEAN Frog. Speaking of the findings, Dr. Wardynski has claimed, “this is what incompetence looks like.” Dr. Robinson, as usual, praised Wardynski for bringing in a “culture of change.”

There are going to be “firings, demotions, and transfer,” and everyone said, “STRONG LEADER, STRONG LEADER” because that’s exactly what Wardynski paid them to say. And when they didn’t say it often enough, he led the chorus himself.

And much of the public buys into the message that our schools are finally going to be run by people who do things the right way, who follow the rules, who don’t just put their friends, regardless of their inexperience or incompetence into highly paid positions of power.

So where’s the evidence that Dr. Wardynski and his administrative team are doing things any differently?

There doesn’t seem to be any, and as Mr. Blair pointed out on Thursday, February 16th, that doesn’t make us feel any better.

Everyone knows that Dr. Wardynski has made a habit of hiring his friends. That’s old news.

Everyone knows that Dr. Wardynski is bringing in TFAers, even though they cost more and there is no shortages of highly qualified and fully certified teachers in the district.

As I said, old news. What have they done lately?

What about these two tidbits of information:

On Thursday, Mr. Headrick criticized the District’s Procurement Process. He claimed that there was “Significant opportunity for fraud, waste and abuse, and legal liabilities associated with non-compliance to state and federal law.”

The bid law is indeed state law. Was this contract with LEAN Frog executed in accordance with the bid law? That the school board approves the contracts that Dr. Wardynski enters into is also a requirement. (And since they’ve approved every single recommendation the man has brought so far, that shouldn’t be too onerous of a requirement, should it?) Was this contract approved by the board? If so, when?

Also who paid for this LEAN Frog evaluation that is offering Dr. Wardynski political cover to do whatever he wants? The first time that the school board voted to approve hiring Mr. Headrick of LEAN Frog was yesterday at a special called board meeting. AND YET, Huntsville City Schools has been paying LEAN Frog since November. Here are the numbers

November 2011: ;$2,890.00 (Pg. 20)

December 2011: $5,760.00 (Pg. 25)

January 2012: $5,760.00 (Pg. 3)

January 2012: $5,380.00 (Pg. 9)

January 2012: $6,480.00 (Pg. 16)

So, the Huntsville City Schools has paid LEAN Frog at total of $26,270.00 since November 2011, but the first time the board approved hiring of this company was February 25, 2012. I have asked Dr. Robinson about this oversight in oversight, but as of this writing she hasn’t responded to my question.

A culture of change indeed, Dr. Robinson.

What about hiring practices, and the posting of jobs?

On Thursday, February 16th, Mr. Headrick pointedly stated that the Human Resource department was “inefficient” and “2.5 to 3 months behind at time of assessment.” He claimed that HR received “32 hours of interruptions in two days.” (You’ll note that he did not offer any details to put these numbers into context like sharing how many total working hours were performed in that office in those two days. That would be helpful information, wouldn’t it?) Mr. Headrick claimed that the department was having to waste time examining and re-doing work.

Perhaps one reason that HR is running behind is because Dr. Wardynski and his Administrative team aren’t following the standards and procedures for hiring themselves.

Goodness, but wouldn’t it be embarrassing if, say the then Director of Transition and the now Director of Operations were, oh I don’t know, posting jobs that haven’t even opened yet on his Facebook Wall?

That would require some additional oversight and re-doing of work on the part of the HR department, don’t you think?

Here’s a screen shot from Mr. Aaron King’s Facebook Wall. Assuming that he doesn’t lock his Facebook account down in the near future, you can see this for yourself if you wish. Just scroll down to a post on January 2, 2012.

In addition, I’ve “shared” this posting on the Geek Palaver Facebook Page. Here’s a screen capture of the posting for those of you who don’t use Facebook.

I wonder if this posting, “for all positions (directors, coordinators, principals, teachers, etc)” is following the standards established by the HR department, state and federal law? Perhaps the New Employee Orientation Materials that Mr. King received were not current. That must be the problem, right?

Giving your friends a two month head start on applying for state jobs, jobs that must be open to everyone, jobs that were not open on January 2nd, is a violation of the state requirements for hiring. And as Mr. King posted, he and Col. Wardynski, should “take ownership for their decisions.”

Doesn’t this basically prove that the current witch hunt that Dr. Wardynski is engaged in is politically motivated? I mean, why else would he instruct his XO to talk to his buddies about jobs nearly two months before he discusses any of this with the public? It would seem that he is hoping to take advantage of the public outcry over this issue to place yet more like-minded, inexperienced people into positions of power (that pay well) throughout the district, don’t you think?

See, I’ve gotten a good amount of grief since the 16th of February for questioning our “Strong Leader.” I’ve been told that I should just support what he’s doing to clean up Huntsville City Schools. I’ve been told that these changes, this culture of change that he’s bringing in, will be good for our schools. I’ve been told that ultimately these changes will be good for the system. I’ve been told I should quit being apprehensive and that the whining must stop.

But the simple fact of the matter is that all this talk of inefficiencies and criminal behavior that happened in the past is simply being used to cover up inefficiencies and criminal behavior that is happening right now.

As I said long ago, the new boss is the same as the old boss, and anyone telling you differently isn’t paying attention.

2012Sun19Feb

Wardynski: Just Trust Me

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (6) | TrackbackFiled in polityTags: corporate education, dr. casey wardynski, huntsville city schools, school board

“I’m not sure that makes me feel any better.” David Blair.

I know exactly how you feel, Mr. Blair, and thank you for asking a good question on Thursday night. (Yes, I actually have something positive to say about a member of our school board. It can happen.)

It seems that there have been some bad, and perhaps in some cases even criminal, decisions made in the past concerning the business practices of Huntsville City Schools for the past ten years. There may have been both sins of commission and omission. You can read a summary of three reports offered by consultants hired by the superintendent to review business practices before he came to town to save us in the Times. In addition to that, I would recommend that you take a look at the presentations that were offered to the board. You can find those here.

So after an extensive, lengthy and costly discussion about the business practices of the system from the past ten years, the board moved out of the work session and into voting on some of the current superintendent’s recommendations.

Dr. Wardynski loves to question the past. Throughout his hour and fifteen minute presentation on how terrible things were in the system ten years ago, Dr. Wardynski asked many questions of his consultants: Most of which were designed to show alternately how terrible the leadership of the system used to be as opposed to how wonderful the leadership of the system is today.

Even though his consultant, Byron Headrick of Lean Frog, explicitly stated numerous times that the system must have a “Strong Executive Leadership Team,” Dr. Wardynski wasn’t satisfied with that. So he asked Mr. Headrick (who gets paid to find inefficiencies) to say one more time that the only thing that the system currently has gotten right is, wait for it, a “strong executive leadership team” willing to address these changes.

[For some reason, the final conclusion slide is not included with the presentations found on the HCS website. I'm sure that's just an oversight of our strong executive leadership team. Here's a quick snapshot of that slide if you're interested.]

However, once we move out of the past and into the present, Dr. Wardynski is decidedly less interested in questions about his decision making processes.

Once the Work Session of the board meeting was finally over, the board quickly moved from the past to the present. Under the agenda action items, the board was asked to approve the minutes of previous meetings and then to approve, upon the superintendent’s recommendation, the current “Consent Agenda” which included Gifts to Schools, Temporary Agreements, and Bid Tabs.

Here is a transcript of the board discussion during that portion of the meeting.

McCaulley: “The superintendent recommends the approval of the consent agenda consisting of gifts to schools, temporary agreements and bid tabs. Before we vote on bid tabs, let me. Um, board members, delete the directive, the parking signs. The superintendent said that was a little premature. So delete that, item, right there. We’re not going to get those.

Birney: Delete 1270?

McCaulley: Delete 1270.

McCaulley: Motion?

Blair: Motion to approve the consent agenda.

Robinson: Second.

Blair: Okay, I’ve got a question.

McCaulley: Discussion.

Blair: So after hearing all of this [the discussion concerning business practices], so how do I get comfortable with um, building materials, telephone replacement, and school communications center. How do I get comfortable with that?

Wardynski: Well we’re reviewing all of these, and we can always come back to the board as we did before with cell phones. But we have to keep the district running while we get things straightened out. And so these processes we’re recommending continuing, and if we need to stop we will.

McCaulley: Any more discussion?

Blair: I’m not certain that makes me feel any better.

Robinson: [Speaking over Blair and redirecting the Superintendent] So I was going to say, thirty days from now do we know that this, that we’re actually going to be what we said. I’m assuming there’s going to be more oversight, maybe some monitoring. These might be your test cases here as you develop your processes.

Wardynski: That’s right.

Blair: Okay

McCaulley: All in favor say Aye.

While Blair cannot be heard voting in favor, his mouth does move during the Aye vote. No one opposed the recommendation.

So thanks to David Blair, we have a clear understanding of the limits of Dr. Wardynski’s interest in transparency, addressing inefficiencies, and providing strong executive leadership. All of that ends prior to July 5, 2011, the day that Wardynski was hired.

For questions about his recommendations all he really has to offer is Just Trust Me.

We’re supposed to just trust him that he isn’t going to be inefficient. We’re supposed to just trust him that he isn’t going to use the system for personal gain. We’re supposed to just trust him.

Doing so would be easier if his comments in the past had proven to be more trustworthy.

Doing so would be easier if he did not seem to be constantly redirecting system funds to Broad Foundation funded organizations.

Doing so would be easier if he would simply answer questions once in a while.

In short, once again, Dr. Wardynski is engaged in a witch hunt with internal reviews that only review the past.

Please understand that I too believe that the school system must be efficient. He’s absolutely correct that inefficiencies, particularly ones like the E-Rate Review, are inexcusable. The people responsible for this must be held accountable. However, we must review more than just the past. Our board members (four of whom were on the board when all of the inefficiencies were taking place) must hold our superintendent accountable for his current actions and recommendations.

Even though Mr. Blair (the only member who wasn’t on the board during the years reviewed by Dr. Wardynski) asked a good question, he went right ahead and voted for the recommendation despite his statement that the answer of just trust me didn’t make him feel better.

This is blind faith.

Blind faith got us into this mess; it will not get us out.

I feel your pain, Mr. Blair. Dr. Wardynski’s answers (when he actually offers one) rarely leave me feeling better either.

The difference is I wouldn’t go ahead and vote for the recommendation anyway.

2012Sat11Feb

Teaching to the Test

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (13) | TrackbackFiled in polityTags: dr. casey wardynski, teaching, testing

On Thursday, February 2, 2012, Dr. Wardynski, in his monologue, had this to say about my comments when I mentioned in passing that teachers weren’t simply teaching to the test:

Uh, those who claim that testing, we teach to the test, that testing is not a valuable resource simply do not know what they are talking about. There is no way to test, to take, to teach to the STAR test. It’s a computive, computer-adaptive test in which every child will face a different question. And the questions aren’t the kind you can teach to. If you don’t know algebra, you can’t teach to answering an algebra question. If you don’t know how to factor an equation, you can’t teach to answering a question like that. If you can’t read, we can’t teach you what the paragraph said, cause you haven’t seen the paragraph. And so we’re after the business of literacy and numeracy. Uh, we’re taking a very strategic approach to raising the proficiency of our children, and our excellent teachers are responding.

Wow, where to begin.

It’s important to note that I didn’t claim in my statement that the district was teaching to the test. What I actually said was:

It’s [a love for education] what motivates Mrs. Dodson to take on extra work of evaluating additional assignments like poetry writing projects to encourage advanced students to continue to grow beyond merely the requirements of the test.

Perhaps he was reacting to others’ comments that claim that when testing is the single method of evaluation offered for both students and teachers, then our classrooms set education aside in deference to teaching to the test. While I didn’t say this on Thursday night, it is a problem that I recognize. If the score on the test is the only metric by which we evaluate student and teacher performance, then the test takes the highest priority in the classroom.

It becomes more important than critical thought.

It becomes more important than critical analysis of ideas.

It becomes more important than guided social development.

It becomes more important than intellectual curiosity.

In short, teaching to the test leaves a whole world of education in the dark. You can read more about what standardized tests do and do not cover in The Myths of Standardized Tests: Why They Don’t Tell You What You Think They Do.

But with his decades of experience in education, Dr. Wardynski wants you to know that “those who claim we teach to the test, that testing is not a valuable resource simply do not know what they are talking about.”

That’s right. Dr. Wardynski thinks I don’t know what I’m talking about. Thank you sir, that’s high praise coming from you.

So let’s look at his argument to see if Dr. Wardynski is right or not.

The Straw Man Fallacy

It’s always useful, when you enter into a debate with someone, to have an opponent who says something that’s easy to rip apart. Sadly, sometimes we enter into debates with people who aren’t stupid. When this happens, one common method of attack is to set up a straw man that’s easy to knock down. This is a useful technique as typically if you can show that your opponent is wrong on one point, then those listening to the debate will assume that your opponent is wrong on all points. But when your opponent doesn’t give you an easy target, well then you can just create your own.

This is the straw man fallacy. Claim that your opponent has claimed something that is false, even when he or she hasn’t.

Despite Dr. Wardynski’s claims, no reasonable person is claiming that “testing is not a valuable resource.” Every educator knows that testing does have value. But every educator also knows that no matter how fantastic the test is, the test is but one of many methods needed to evaluate education. You’re claiming that your opponents are speaking in absolutes when it is in fact you who are elevating the test to the level of absolute in student performance, in teacher performance, and in school performance.

I am not claiming that the test has no value. I am simply claiming that the test does not have absolute value.

Knowing What You’re Talking About

Dr. Wardynski then goes own to offer an impassioned defense of how it would be impossible to teach to the STAR test. He says:

There is no way to test, to take, to teach to the STAR test. It’s a computive, computer-adaptive test in which every child will face a different question. And the questions aren’t the kind you can teach to. If you don’t know algebra, you can’t teach to answering an algebra question. If you don’t know how to factor an equation, you can’t teach to answering a question like that. If you can’t read, we can’t teach you what the paragraph said, cause you haven’t seen the paragraph.

His argument seems to be that since no one sees the actual questions ahead of time, that it would be impossible to teach to the test. He’s arguing for the security of the STAR test and in doing so, he shows that he doesn’t understand teaching, testing or teaching to the test at all.

I do so love situational irony.

Let’s see if we can help him out here a little. If a teacher knows, as he claimed in his “we’re not teaching to the test speech” that her students are going to be tested on algebra, then a teacher knows that spending time talking about geometry is a waste of time, even if the students raise questions that are geometry questions. If a teacher knows that the test questions are based on the ability to remember details from a paragraph, then a teacher knows that spending time talking about the meaning of a paragraph is less important than talking about the content of the paragraph.

Teaching to the test doesn’t require knowing exactly what questions will be asked on a test. That’s cheating, not teaching to the test.

Teaching to the test means that a teacher knows that the test will cover 10 mathematical concepts, and so the entire focus of the class is then directed toward mathematical concepts ignoring the other questions or pathways that might arise from classroom discussion, questions, or as I mentioned above, intellectual curiosity.

In short, Dr. Wardynski has once again demonstrated his failure to understand the educational process.

Education is More than Testing

Let me see if I can finish with an example of what I am talking about here.

I teach, among other things, a Survey of the New Testament class. In this class, we review the historical underpinnings and development of the New Testament. One of the final assignments in the class is to write an argumentative research essay on what the New Testament has to say about a controversial subject such as abortion, homosexuality, poverty, whatever the student wishes to study.

This is the test that the students must complete. It tests their ability to use resources they’ve been exposed to in the class. It tests their ability to use various methods of Biblical criticism that we’ve discussed in the class. It tests their ability to discuss Scripture intelligently and reasonably.

One semester, I had a student who just couldn’t get her mind around the assignment. She had been struggling all semester, her writing was, to be frank, terrible, and I was to the point of suggesting to her that perhaps trying the class again at a time when her personal life wasn’t interfering with her education might make the class and the assignments easier. You see, her child was dying, and the idea of debating Scripture just wasn’t connecting with her.

But while talking to each other, I discovered that she did have an extensive interest in Mary, Jesus’ mother. She felt connected to her and her loss of her son, especially at that moment in her life. So since I had been the one to design the test, and since I have the freedom to find a student’s interest and run with it, I was able to redesign the assignment into a research essay on Mary.

This student, who had had difficulty even stringing together three sentences in a coherent way, wrote the best essay of the class, and in fact, one of the best essays I have received since. She was getting the learning objectives of the class, and once the test was modified to the student, she was able demonstrate that to me.

Education must be a personal, direct experience between the teacher and the student. When a district determines the test, the curriculum, and what’s important for a student to accomplish, they are taking education out of the hands of the teachers and students, and putting it into the hands of politicians and private companies who sell the test.

We should, we must teach to the student not to the test.

This is why Dr. Wardynski is unconcerned about the quality of the teachers he hires or the experienced ones he runs off. Teachers don’t matter in this brave new world.

A hyper-emphasis on testing results in an educational system where neither the teacher nor the student actually matter.

2012Sat04Feb

Morale Matters

Permalink | Shortlink | Comments (6) | TrackbackFiled in polity, spiritTags: dr. casey wardynski, huntsville city schools, morale, school board, teaching

It seems that nearly every week, Dr. Wardynski does something else to consolidate his power over our school system. This week, every principal in Huntsville City Schools awoke on Sunday to read, “All Huntsville Principals’ Jobs on the Table, says Superintendent.”

This type of headline tends to put a bit of a damper on your week, don’t you think? Not exactly making that Monday morning commute to school an enjoyable one did it?

I’m certain that if you asked them individually, they would tell you, with no prevarication, that it didn’t effect them in the slightest. Our principals are professional educators. And every single one with whom I’ve worked or met absolutely loves their job. Without exception, they would clearly tell you that they have the greatest job on the planet as they get to help educate our children.

So, since that would be their public response, I want you to step into their shoes for a moment. Imagine how you would feel if you woke up Sunday morning to see your direct supervisor telling the city that your job is on the table? (I fully realize that this isn’t a difficult thing to imagine for many of you. The tragic cuts to NASA have made this a recurring reality for many in this city.)

Answer honestly: Would seeing that in the paper have an effect on your morale? Would it affect your desire to go to work on Monday?

For myself (and I’m one of those people who do have the best job on the planet), the answer is a resounding yes.

This is why I decided to speak at the board meeting on Thursday night. Again. Yes, I know that the board and superintendent are sick of me and wish I would just go away. I know that many in the community who attend the meetings or watch them online feel likewise.

It may come as a surprise, but I feel that way, too.

I hate spending every other Thursday night away from my family. I hate sitting and watching the board members (not all, but the overwhelming majority) fall all over themselves praising Wardynski (pretty much as they did in the article above). I would much rather spend my evenings at home helping with homework and playing with the kids.

I go for one reason: I believe it is the right thing to do. I believe standing up for our kids, our teachers, our principals and schools is my duty as a parent and citizen.

And so I go: if only to remind the superintendent and the board that they work for us.

Here are my comments from Thursday night:

I’m here tonight to speak about morale in the district.

Morale and Motivation Matter. It matters how you treat people. It matters what you say to them. Morale matters.

When our teachers go for four years without a raise, when they see their step raises frozen, when they see their starting salaries reduced to the state minimum, all while the board votes to give bonuses, “state-competitive salaries,” and raises to the maximum posted salaries of the senior administration because they wouldn’t come for less, morale matters.

When our superintendent dismisses “traditionally trained” teachers as often ineffective in teaching students in high poverty areas, morale matters.

When our superintendent attempts to “motivate” teachers by posting student performance data on teachers’ doors, morale matters.

When our superintendent says that “all principals’ jobs are on the table,” morale matters. Punitive or not, morale matters.

When our board members claim that our superintendent is doing exactly what he was hired to do in doing these things, morale matters.

A love for education is what motivates teachers like Mrs. Roth to organize a star gazing event, on her own time, for Mt. Gap elementary students.

It’s what motivates Mrs. Bowling to continue to push her students to express themselves even when that expression is difficult to understand.

It’s what motivates Mrs. Dodson to take on extra work of evaluating additional assignments like poetry writing projects to encourage advanced students to continue to grow beyond merely the requirements of the test.

It’s what pushes parents and teachers to work together on projects like this year’s PTA Reflections competition on Diversity allowing for a total of 42 students across the district to go the state competition.

Good morale is not an enemy. We have excellent teachers. We have excellent principals. They love education. Help them, let them do their jobs.

Strangely on Thursday, the board seemed more than willing to respond to citizen comments. Dr. Wardynski, however, held his response to my statements until the very end of the night. This time, at least, he made his remarks in a publicly. You may read a transcript of all of those remarks here.

At a couple of points, Dr. Wardynski seems to be directly responding to myself and a parent who followed me, Ms. Kelli Thomas who spoke passionately about the fear she experiences every time she sends her child to school. I will be responding in great detail to his speech in the coming days, but there’s one issue that I would like to clear up tonight. At one point during his comments, Dr. Wardynski claimed that I was mistaken in my assertion that he was attempting to “motivate” teachers by posting student performance data on their doors. He did, in effect, imply that I was lying about the posting of data. Here’s exactly what Dr. Wardynski said during his comments following Citizens’ Comments:

We know the growth of students in our classrooms. Uh, we do not post it on the doors of our classrooms. We don’t need to. Our teachers can see it on their computers. And we discuss it every week in virtual teleconferences with our principals and our school leaders. And we review school performance at the classroom level in some cases, and at the school level in all cases.

Seemingly in response to my comments (although I know for a fact that many other parents have raised this issue with Dr. Wardynski privately as well) that teachers (at least in the “managed” schools) are required to post their students’ performance on standardized tests such as DIBELS and STAR Enterprise Testing in public areas for the entire school to see. Dr. Wardynski said, “Uh, we do not post it on the doors of our classrooms. We don’t need to. Our teachers can see it on their computers.”

Concerning this, this superintendent is mistaken. It is actually quite common among the managed schools (those who students do not achieve some pre-determined testing goal) for compiled student testing performance data to be posting in public places in these schools. Some schools, such as Morris Elementary, post this information on the wall immediately beside the teachers’ classrooms. Other schools, like Highlands Elementary have posted all of their classes scores on the window looking into the lunchroom as seen in the photos below. I have intentionally blurred these photographs so that no personal information may be seen in them, but the photos still clearly show 22 individual charts displaying the standard STAR Enterprise Test Report. Highlands Elementary’s website shows that they have 20 Grades 1-5 teachers or if you prefer classrooms. Here is a sample of the STAR Enterprise Tests Classroom Report.

What we see in the photo below are complied student performance results for the STAR Enterprise Tests displayed in a public area for everyone to see. These pictures were taken by a concerned parent with a child at Highlands Elementary.

Next we see a shot of the DIBELS testing results as well.

I have furthermore received reports that similar displays may be seen at the following schools:

Chapman Elementary
Highlands Elementary
Monte Sano Elementary
Morris Elementary

I am fairly certain that these four schools are not anomalies in this. In so far as I am aware (I have not searched the entire school in either case), neither Challenger Elementary nor Mt. Gap Elementary have similar displays. I am convinced that either they have not been asked to do so, or that their principals have simply refused to do so. Either way, I am grateful.

Education is not a zero-sum game. It is not a competition where teachers fight against each other to make sure that their scores are higher. When such competition occurs, the result quite often destroys the educational process.

Posting scores in this manner creates a competitive environment in our schools between our teachers and between our schools. If this continues, our kids will be the ultimate losers.

Thus, it would seem that Dr. Wardynski is correct when he states that “we do not post it on the doors of our classrooms.” So far I haven’t found an actual case where it is posted specifically on the classroom door. However, it would seem that he is mistaken when he suggests that the scores are only displayed on teachers computers.

Either way, I am convinced that there is a systematic effort underway at the district level to demoralize our principals, teachers, and at least the “uppity” parents who question decisions and actions of the superintendent. That was what I was speaking against. It is what I am writing to oppose even today.

No single resource is as valuable to the education of our children as our teachers. Now, I agree with Dr. Wardynski that not every teacher should be a teacher. There are a small handful of teachers in every system who likely should be doing something else. And he is also correct when he says that good teachers “don’t appreciate working with teachers who don’t do their job.”

However, despite his words to the contrary on Thursday night, I know that given the concerns I outlined in my comments that the morale of the teaching and principal corps of our district are currently at dangerously low levels.

Our teachers and principals are the public face of our educational system, and it’s far past time that they were honored for the nearly impossible task they have shouldered. It’s far past time that we parents recognized our excellent teachers and principals publicly.

Look, as a parent first, I am completely aware that any teacher or principal caught on the wrong day can come across as difficult, uncaring, or blindly stubborn. I’ve had a few of “those” meetings where I left shaking my head thinking, “Were we talking about the same child?”

But those times, even in an extraordinarily stress-filled year as 2011-2012, are extremely rare. And when they have happened, in my experience all that has been required to correct the issue is simply another discussion with them to clear the air.

Our teachers and principals are human. They are not machines. They will occasionally make mistakes or seem brisk in their tone. However, these issues pale in comparison to the ever-increasing workload, ever-decreasing financial support, and more importantly, steadily increasing attacks.

Teachers and principals teach because they love our kids and believe in education. It’s far past time that we realize that standing up for our kids means that we must almost always stand up for our teachers because they are usually on the same side.

I do not believe that this superintendent nor this board are regularly standing up for neither our kids nor our teachers. And it is far past time for that, and the kind of attacks I’ve mentioned above to end. Not to challenge Willie Nelson, but my heroes have always been teachers. They are the light-bringers. They are the Truth-tellers. And if we value those qualities in our community, we must stand for them now.

I hope that the superintendent and the board have a better Sunday morning than they gave to our principals last Sunday.

May 2012
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
« Apr
	1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Huntsville Blogs

Click to view / hide