Check out this TikTok video providing more information about the American Birthright standards that our district adopted in January without public discussion:
Author Archives: admin
Colorado Springs’ federal judge to mediate Woodland Park schools free speech suit
Posted yesterday in the Colorado Politics website:
Lawyers for the Woodland Park School District and the local teachers’ union agreed on Wednesday to mediate their dispute over a policy that allegedly infringes on employees’ constitutional right to free speech.
Last month, the Woodland Park Education Association and its president, Nathaniel Owen, filed suit against the district, seeking to strike down a prohibition on employees speaking to the press or posting on social media about school matters without the superintendent’s prior approval. The district warned that neutering the policy would embolden “dissident” teachers in a school board election year.
At a Sept. 13 conference, U.S. District Court Judge Gordon P. Gallagher cautioned that portions of the policy, in his view, “do have problems.”
In lieu of holding a hearing on the plaintiffs’ request to block the policy’s enforcement through a preliminary injunction, Gallagher asked the parties if they would be amenable to revamping the document themselves. He disclosed that U.S. Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell, the lone federal judge stationed in Colorado Springs, had offered to mediate the dispute.
“We think that’s a great idea,” said Matthew J. Werner, the attorney for the district. The plaintiffs’ attorney similarly agreed to meet with Dominguez Braswell.
Earlier this year, the school district revised its policy on press releases and interviews. Previously, the policy focused on the superintendent’s role in communicating to the public. However, the modifications now prohibit employees from being interviewed by the media about school operations without authorization.
Moreover, the policy prevents staff from posting on social media “in their capacity as employees” about district decisions, unless granted permission. Violations of the policy “will be considered to be insubordination.”
The teachers’ union challenged the manner in which the district issued the policy, as well as the substance.
“Employees can no longer speak on matters of public concern without fear of reprisal from the School District,” lawyers for the plaintiffs argued in seeking an injunction. Teachers are “prohibited from being able to speak at School Board meetings, post information on social media, or make comments to the media on matters of public concern regarding their working conditions and learning environment.”
The district countered that eliminating the policy would increase criticism and disrupt operations.
“To grant the Union’s Motion would require an injunction that would embolden dissident School District employees to make public statements on social media as official school representatives,” wrote Werner. “The School District faces significant employee dissent should the injunction be imposed during an election year and a tumultuous and contentious political climate.”
In May, NBC News reported on the tumult in the district, in which a conservative school board member likened their “divide, scatter, conquer” tactics to those of former President Donald Trump. The superintendent has also minimized the importance of student counseling and the board president derided the teachers’ “psycho agenda.”
Other controversies included the board’s condemnation of voluntary mental health screenings for children and their embrace of a conservative social studies curriculum that state board of education members called “too extreme.” Amid the outcry after the school board approved a charter school allegedly without prior notice, board member David Illingworth urged the then-superintendent to create a “list of positions in which change in personnel would be beneficial” — apparently referring to terminations.
The teachers’ union lawsuit is the latest effort to confront the district’s leadership. Gallagher, the district judge, suggested that the constitutional claims about the district’s restrictive communication policy had merit.
“As written, on its face,” he said, some sections “do have problems. Problems that can potentially be corrected. But problems nonetheless.”
The parties agreed to try mediation over the next two to three weeks. Gallagher said if they still wish for him to rule on a preliminary injunction afterward, he will proceed.
“I will await her report on that issue,” he said, referring to Dominguez Braswell.
The lawsuit also challenges the district’s decision to provide staff with professional liability insurance through the Professional Association of Colorado Educators, which the plaintiffs have called an anti-union organization.
The case is Woodland Park Education Association et al. v. Woodland Park School District et al.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/courts/colorado-springs-federal-judge-to-mediate-woodland-park-schools-free-speech-suit/article_50c26db4-5283-11ee-b9af-c712dfa6edb3.html?fbclid=IwAR2iAFPlHjRypb-O5AyNmjJEkY0xwZjvlDr0-de5Ds5BFjJG9nnTzgoCjJQ
Woodland Park schools stifle free speech | BIDLACK
Posted on the Colorado Politics Website, by Hal Bidlack:
Sometime in 1962, a clerk working at the U.S. Supreme Court was sifting through the many mailbags that, each year, brought hundreds of letters asking the court to take up a particular legal case. Most of these letters were highly polished legal documents, prepared by law firms with lots of experience in case law. But on that day in the early 1960s, a clerk, whose name is unfortunately lost to time, noticed a handwritten envelope addressed to SCOTUS from a prison.
Upon opening the letter, the clerk found a letter written in ink and by hand from a prisoner from Florida, who was in jail for a breaking-and-entering charge. His name was Clarence Gideon, and he had asked for a lawyer when he was arrested, but since he was indigent, he was not given one. He was duly tried, convicted and sent to prison.
The Supreme Court took up the case, and would, in 1963, rule unanimously for Gideon. Simply put, SCOTUS ruled people on trial get lawyers. I’ve written about the importance of cases such as Gideon before, wherein a seemingly small case rises in importance as an important Constitutional question is raised.
I thought about Gideon again this week when reading an interesting Colorado Politics story about the goings on in Woodland Park, a beautiful city directly west of Colorado Springs. The school board up there has become a pretty far-right organization, and it appears to be openly hostile to teachers and especially teacher’s unions. The school board has instituted a new policy wherein the board forbade any teacher or other employee from talking to the press or posting on social media about school matters, without the superintendent’s prior approval (emphasis mine). You know, a gag rule.
Not at all surprisingly, there were legal actions taken, and now both sides have agreed to meet with a federal judge down here in Colorado Springs in hopes he can mediate and find a solution. The judge did note, at the outset, the district’s policy had problems.
Can we think for a moment about what the Woodland Park school board is actually doing? They are demanding their employees be mute, with reporters or on their own Facebook or Instagram pages, unless the big boss has specifically told them what they want to say is OK. Oh, and if they do post something about their school on a social media page without permission, they can be charged with “insubordination.”
Lawyers for the board even went so far as to say, “To grant the Union’s Motion would require an injunction that would embolden dissident School District employees to make public statements on social media as official school representatives.” Seriously? Employees who differ with a chosen policy are now “dissident?” Agree completely or you are silenced? Sound like anywhere else in the world you can think of?
Now, to be sure, there are some occupations where such restrictions make sense, at least to a degree. During my own 25-year-plus military career I voluntarily agreed to restrictions on my free speech rights, when it came to policy, nuclear issues, and such. But should employers not dealing with national security issues be able to simply stifle their workers when those workers are disgruntled? Should bosses be able to ensure they are never criticized?
I have long been troubled by those who seek to limit speech, outside of a few tiny areas (such as yelling fire in a crowded theater, making false claims in a TV commercial, etc.). I call myself an absolutist on the First Amendment. I’ve always believed the best way to fight “bad” speech is with more and more speech, rather than trying to shut down that speech with which you disagree.
The Woodland Park School Board was taken over by hard-right folks, which is fine given that conservative town elected them, but now that same board seems to be saying they demand their employees never question them, and that they remain above any criticism or remonstration. But that is not the way the United States works, or at least it hasn’t been. And folks who seek to shut down criticism forget times can change, and they might one day find themselves on the other side of the power gap. Are they likely then to believe their rights to criticize can be shut down? Sauce for the goose, so to speak.
At the moment, this case is headed for mitigation, and it is possible the judge involved may be able to work out a solution that both sides accept, even if they don’t agree with it. But I can’t help but wonder if this case is a possible future “Gideon?” If the judge decides, as he hinted, the policy has major problems and unconstitutional implications, might this case end up back in the court system, and perhaps ultimately all the way to the Supreme Court? It wouldn’t surprise me.
Regardless of your beliefs, be you far-right, far-left, or somewhere in the middle, I urge you to be on guard and always uneasy when any government entity seeks to reduce your free speech rights. We can all think of countries wherein the laws make it a crime to criticize the leader. I don’t think too many of us would like to live in those places.
The price of you having your own free speech rights is that you will, from time to time, have to listen to other people’s speech with which you strongly disagree. And please be especially alert to anyone who demands other folks’ free speech rights should be limited to avoid “dissident” behavior.
Free speech can be challenging and frustrating, but it is far better than the alternative. I hope the people on the Woodland Park school board come to understand that, lest a future Supreme Court clerk find a letter from a teacher asking for free speech rights in a mail bag, as even this hard-right Supreme Court would likely find the restrictions imposed to be unconstitutional.
Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/opinion/woodland-park-schools-stifle-free-speech-bidlack/article_e112aa4a-5374-11ee-9a96-3f6f8733b658.html
Freedom From Religion Foundation weighs in on the American Birthright Standard
The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) published this letter, offering its interpretation of the American Birthright Standard. Here’s a quote from that:
FFRF is strongly urging the board to reject the adoption of American Birthright standards and uphold its duty to provide standards grounded in current scholarship, reflect best practices in social studies education and be inclusive for all student backgrounds and ability levels, as recommended by experts such as the National Council for the Social Studies.
“Public schools have a duty to ensure that instructional materials do not promote a particular religious viewpoint,” FFRF Staff Attorney Chris Line writes.
Social studies standards that falsely teach that Christian history and Christian traditions are inherently American and/or that religion makes up the fabric of ethics and morality (under the guise of secular history and moral philosophy) blatantly promote Christianity and violate the rights of district students and parents.
A look into district finances – Merit Academy revenue
The district documents all money going to Merit, and all money withheld, in their flowthrough spreadsheets. It’s interesting comparing last year to this year. Here are the two files to open and look at while reading this post:
April 2023 (this is the latest one I have for last fiscal year…scroll towards the end of this link)
You’ll notice changes in the first section, revenue being directed to Merit. They’ve been given portions of more line items than before.
The Buyback Services section is where the largest changes can be found. Money withheld for administrative oversight has decreased from 5% to 0.8%. Buildings/grounds maintenance has decreased by 61%. Overall, Merit is paying $323,883.14 less in buyback services this year than last year. Note however that last year, they were being charged $150,000 for construction/renovation costs. It’s unknown if that amount covered everything done to the Middle School or not. So perhaps a more fair number to use in this comparison would be to say they’re paying $173,883.14 less in buyback services this year.
Also note that Merit is not paying the same proportion of transportation costs as the rest of the schools in the district. As for food service, while they’re participating in that program, there is no written agreement in place and no costs being shared with Merit (that program is mostly but not completely funded by the statewide free lunch program).
Campaign collaboration heats up
This school board election campaign is heating up on social media, with collaboration becoming more and more apparent. Take this example from a recent Facebook thread on the Teller County Community Page. Local SAC member Heather Scholz dove into the debate about mask mandates in schools, and posted this screenshot…which happened to catch Katie Illingworth (David Illingworth’s wife) texting her with advice on making this an entirely new message thread instead of just a reply on September 9th:
This has been a recent topic of debate…Dave Illingworth posted this on his campaign page on Facebook:
Given this, it wasn’t surprising to see Dave’s wife Katie step in to help guide this conversation elsewhere on social media.
What appears normal on the surface though, has one serious problem.
In July, Heather Scholz formed an Independent Expenditure (IE) committee called “Teller County for School Choice”, with the stated purpose of:
TO UPHOLD EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM IN TELLER COUNTY’S WOODLAND PARK RE-2 SCHOOL DISTRICT, OUR COMMITTEE ENDORSES SCHOOL BOARD CANDIDATES WHO PRIORITIZE SCHOOL CHOICE.
After September 1st, it is illegal for any candidate or candidate commitee for public office to collaborate with an IE. In this Facebook thread, Katie Illingworth attempted to collaborate with Heather Scholz on messaging regarding mask mandates in the district, an issue her husband was promoting in his own Facebook page. Yes, in this case it’s Dave’s wife collaborating and not Dave himself, but the question then becomes, is his wife working on his campaign in any way? As someone who has shown a keen interest in our school district, being one of Merit Academy’s co-founders and later a Merit Academy board member, it is unreasonable to expect she would not be a participant in her own husband’s re-election effort. There’s a chance this level of collaboration *might* be OK…but if it can be influencing any expenditures of that IE (advertising messages, etc), it would definitely not be OK.
As a side note, Heather’s IE is currently delinquent, having not filed their 9/5/2023 report of donations and expenditures. She’s being assessed a penalty of $50 per day for this.
She may perhaps find some success in requesting a waiver of fees…David Illingworth himself has faced fees multiple times for filing his paperwork late (though his requests for waivers were typically denied). Go dig around the Tracer website if you want to learn more (search for either ‘candidate’ and then Illingworth, or choose ‘committee’ and then ‘Teller County for School Choice’.
’23-24 preliminary enrollment numbers
It took a few CORA requests, but I finally have the preliminary enrollment numbers for our school district, as of the end of August. These are absolutely not final, it’s the count in early October that matters, but it’s a valid data point that shows where we’re starting this year at. I’ll update these numbers once the official October count is complete.
Since this is the first year of universal pre-K in Colorado, I’m excluding those numbers from each years’ comparison. Just focusing on Kindergarten through 12th grade. Also note, I’m using CDE data for previous years (download the ‘membership_grade_by_school’ files). Merit Academy has many students in their homeschool enrichment program, and the CDE counts those as 50% (for funding purposes). So for consistency, I’m applying the same 50% there (for ’23-24, they have 60 students in this program so that counts as 30 in the numbers below; they had 59 the previous year).
In summary, this is yet another year of declining enrollment in our school district, even considering the growth in Merit Academy.
| ’21-22 | ’22-23 | ’23-24 | |
| Traditional Public School enrollment | 1749 | 1676 | 1592 |
| Total District Enrollment* | 2036 | 2007 | 1986 |
Here’s the breakdown by school for the same time period. Merit has shown growth, the other schools are decreasing. Note the sharp drop in the Middle School for this year is largely due to moving 6th grade from that school to the three elementary schools.
This school board has consistently voted to boost Merit and ignore our traditional public schools, and these numbers reflect that. We continue to see declining overall district enrollment, too.
If you have concerns about me not including preschool in these numbers, here are the enrollment totals WITH preschool included:
| ’21-22 | ’22-23 | ’23-24 | |
| Traditional Public School enrollment | 1832 | 1791 | 1721 |
| Total District Enrollment* | 2119 | 2122 | 2085 |
Lastly, note that per CDE data, in the ’22-23 school year, 473 students in our district opted out, and went to schools in other districts. We don’t know what the numbers are for ’23-24 yet.
Continue reading →9/10/2023 Weekly Update
Last Week:
- We dug up some info on Mindsight, the mental health counseling company the district is partnering with, and wrote about it here.
- There are interesting links when you dig into the company Bates and Illingworth are using for (presumably) voter information. They’re one of Truth and Liberty Coalitions ‘influencers’.
- Andrew Wommack Ministries responded to Logan Davis’ recent article, read their response here.
- The Courier published a letter to the editor about our schools.
- We did a little fact checking on another letter to the editor claiming the unions supplied vans to the challengers (verdict: FALSE).
- The Braver Angels group had a large turnout at their meeting at the library, focused on targeting divisiveness.
- Seth Bryant, Mike Knott, and Keegan Barkley held a fundraising dinner at the Ute Pass Cultural center last Friday. A large number of people showed up and had a great time!
Here’s what’s coming up this week:
- School board meeting Wednesday, 6:00, district conference room. Agenda here (livestream link in the agenda). Public comment has been moved to after the ‘actions’ section.
Mental health services in the district
In case you missed it, last spring the district made huge cuts to the mental health services in our schools, refusing to reapply for grants that totaled about $1.2 million and paid for about fifteen jobs in our community. We ended up with some academic advisors in the high school (not licensed counselors), and Witt saying each school would have one counselor in it. Shortly before school started, they sent this email to parents:
WPSD has partnered with Mindsight Health, a mental health support service, to offer professional care and support for our students and in partnership with their families.
Mindsight Health is a skilled team of highly trained mental health professionals passionate about school-based mental health services. Their mission aligns with our commitment to provide the best possible educational experience for our students, recognizing that the mental health of our students plays an important role in academic achievement.
Partnering with Mindsight Health allows us to offer students and families mental health support services within our school systems. WPSD remains dedicated to ensuring parents are actively involved in seeking and receiving mental health support for their children. Mindsight Health professionals will be available to provide individual therapy to district students and can meet with their families to discuss how best to support their student. With this partnership, we aim to empower parents and guardians to engage with their child’s mental health needs, working hand in hand with WPSD and Mindsight Health professionals.
Additionally, we have dedicated space within our high school for Mindsight Health professionals to meet with students upon receiving parent or guardian consent. This private space will ensure the confidentiality of information exchanged between Mindsight Health professionals and the
students and families. Moreover, this service is accessible to WPSD students of district run schools that have a qualified need, with Mindsight Health first working with the family’s insurance to ensure coverage.
What sets Mindsight apart is its dedication to tailoring its services to meet the unique needs of each student. By carefully pairing students with a therapist whose skill set complements their individual needs, Mindsight ensures that every child receives personalized attention and the
most effective support possible.
To learn more about Mindsight and its services, please visit their website at www.joinmindsight.com.
For questions, please contact Kim Moore, CAO, at kmoore@wpsdk12.org.
We’ve looked into Mindsight, and they’re a small Colorado Springs based company with questionable experience. They specialize in these in-school mental health services so seem to be just part of the latest trend to privatize our schools. Founded two years ago, they are a very small company, with two people showing up on LinkedIn, and another co-founder not popping up there – and no information about their staff on their website. Despite that small size, they claim to be supporting 18 different schools in this area. I’ve heard rumors from district insiders that the Mindsight reps are not experienced (one said she is starting her course work, but hasn’t had a class yet), and that there are long wait lists (two months), and while I lack proof of those claims, it does seem plausible with the information they’ve made publicly available.
So, the district chose a small Colorado Springs based company to provide mental health services. Are there other companies that they should have considered as well? Absolutely…and one that instantly stands out is Bloom, a local company started by our former Mental Health Supervisor Laura Magnuson. She’s attracted some experienced staff to her business, and it’s located right here in Woodland Park. I was really curious why they chose Mindsight over our local option of Bloom, so I submitted a CORA request for any RFPs (Requests for Proposals) for mental health services…the response was, “”There are no documents responsive to this request.”
What did this no-bid deal with Mindsight involve? Another CORA request dug up the written agreement we have with Mindsight. I’ll include some bullet points below, but you can read the entire document for yourself at this link.
- The agreement is for one person (or equivalent total support from multiple people) to support the district.
- Mindsight may use interns for these services.
- Both verbal and written permission from parents is required before initiating any mental health services.
- Mindsight is not a ‘crisis response organization’
- Mindsight will have access to student information, schools, and classrooms, as might be expected.
- If Medicaid or private insurance are not applicable for a particular student, the district will pay the fees.
- Travel expenses will be reimbursed at a rate of $30 per day.
- Last but certainly not least – the initial term of the MOU is from August 1, 2022 through July 21,2023 (yeah, they wrote this for the wrong year).
Follow the Money – canvassing
In their latest campaign expense filings, both David Illingworth and Mick Bates list a $250 expense to Crimson Central Services in Colorado Springs, for “Canvassing Services” (you can find all this info on TRACER). Let’s dig deeper. Here’s a list of all election campaigns that had similar expenses with that company for last month:
Six expenses of the same amount for various school board campaigns in different cities…it seems likely these are for the same purpose. We at first thought this was for door knocking, as that’s the traditional definition. However, those two Canon City BOE candidates list a different purpose for their $250 expenses…one lists ‘software expense’, the other lists ‘voter data’. If you look at the past history of this particular company, they have a very large number of expenses of $1,250 for consulting and data. It seems most likely that Bates and Illingworth are paying Crimson Central Services for voter data, which is a normal thing for a candidate to seek out anyway.
Who is Crimson Central Services?
Crimson Central Services is an LLC filed in Wyoming – a state which allows LLC owners to mask the identity of their owners. But the records on Tracer list business addresses, and 6140 South Gun Club Road, Unit K6-354 in Aurora, a UPS store where I presume the 354 is a mailbox number. So, bit of a dead end there. These days though, their address is listed as 100 East Saint Vrain Stree, unit #105, in Colorado Springs. Who else is at that address? Victor’s Canvassing.
Now, Victor’s Canvassing is not a company I’d expect you to have heard of. However, they identified themselves when handing out this flyer to teachers’ homes:
The return address on that flyer (some were mailed, some delivered in person by Victor’s Canvassing) lists the Freedom Foundation in Washington…a right-wing group known for attacking unions and public education (link1, link2, link3, link4, link5…you get the idea). So, no surprise to see them involved here, and not surprising to see Bates and Illingworth using a similar canvassing company as the Freedom Foundation.
But we’re not quite done digging! Who is behind Victor’s Canvassing? The Chief Operating Officer is Daniel Fenlason:
Who is Daniel? The Truth and Liberty Coalition (the 501c(4) group established by Andrew Wommack) proudly lists him as one of their ‘Influencers‘:
So, in summary – Bates and Illingworth appear to be using the services of a canvassing company that’s closely linked to the Truth and Liberty Coalition and Andrew Wommack, as well as the Freedom Foundation.