Not a Good Start to the School Year | Guest column | Pikes Peak Courier | gazette.com

If the traditional schools are fully staffed (or close to it) and in great shape, why did my first grader’s class size jump from 16 to 30 this year?

How is this the best education for my daughter when her class is so big and loud that she comes home with headaches to the point we bought noise canceling headsets so she can concentrate on schoolwork – while in class?
— Read on the Gazette

Candidate Forum Update

The candidate forum chaos continues, but with a little clarification. Yesterday, the Woodland Park School District sent this email out to parents:

Dear WPSD Families,

We want to inform you of an upcoming event – the School Board Candidate Forum on Monday, October 9, moderated by Peter Hilts. Mr. Hilts currently serves as Superintendent of District 49 in Falcon, CO, and provides consultation to education leaders around the state. This event offers a valuable opportunity to engage with the candidates running for our school board and gain insights into their visions for our schools.

Event Details:

Date: Monday,  October 9

Time: 6-8 p.m.

Location: Columbine Elementary Gymnasium

During this forum, candidates will address your questions, share their perspectives, and discuss their plans for our school district.

Forum Format:

Questions solicited from the community will be reviewed to identify common themes, and a selection will be made by the moderator, ensuring their appropriateness for a 90-minute forum. The forum will be conducted in three 30-minute segments. Ballot opponents will be asked the same questions during their allotted 30-minute segment. The remaining 30 minutes are reserved for opening and closing statements.

How to Participate:

Your active participation is essential in making this event a success. To submit your questions for the candidates, click here or visit the homepage of our district website at wpsdk12.org. 

We look forward to your presence at the School Board Candidate Forum on  Monday,  October 9 , from 6-8 p.m . 

Thank you!

We learned the moderator selecting questions is Peter Hilts, the CEO of District 49 and a consultant the WPSD board hired to lead their retreat in Black Forest in the spring of last year. He helped Ken Witt and Brad Miller start up Colorado Digital BOCES (later becoming ERBOCES), and has worked with Brad Miller quite a bit apart from that, including in his current role at D49 where Brad Miller is the attorney (if you’re new to all this, Ken Witt is the Woodland Park superintendent, and Brad Miller was brought in by our current board to be our attorney).

Of course, it’s worth noting that this district candidate forum is at the same date and time as the one organized by the Chamber of Commerce (to be held in the Ute Pass Cultural Center). The district has not answered questions about why they chose this date/time, though it seems clear from their supporters on social media that they did not approve of the moderator of the Chamber event. Questions for the chamber event are drafted by a non-partisan group of Chamber members, and the audience is allowed to submit questions (direct attacks will not be allowed), so the moderator seems to have less influence here than at the district event (the moderator will not edit any questions).

The three challengers all posted statements about this to their Facebook pages today:

I am confirming my attendance at The Greater Woodland Park Chamber of Commerce candidate forum on October 9, 2023.

All candidates were asked to save the date of this forum back in June.

Two days after we received our official invite we were informed the district scheduled their own forum with a hand picked moderator on the same day and time.

Keegan Barkley, Seth Bryant and I reached out to the district in good faith to see if we could agree on a moderator for their forum but did not receive even a courtesy response. Total crickets from the incumbents.

I hope they will reconsider and attend this important event for our community.

Mike Knott

…

Disappointed but not surprised.

Disappointed in the decision to intentionally schedule a conflicting candidate forum with a moderator who is not a stakeholder in our community, but not surprised with the track record the district leadership has placing politics and personal agendas above the best interests of students and families in Woodland Park School District. Deliberately creating conflict instead of trying to negotiate or collaborate in the best interest of the community is not good leadership, it is not good public service.

In an effort to try and give the community a forum that would have all six candidates I requested a date change, I was met with silence. In an effort to get a moderator who understood the complexities of our community, I asked for an impartial local conservative and provided names for consideration, again silence. It was only after officially declining did the district publicize the event. I think it is shameful to use a position of power to deprive the community of the opportunity to compare and contrast the candidates.

I look forward to participating in a long-standing Chamber of Commerce forum for the elected officials of our community. My campaign was, as was the district and other candidates, notified in June to reserve the date. We confirmed upon receipt of my invitation and I will be honoring my commitment. I look forward to seeing you there.

Seth Bryant

…

I am excited to announce that I will be participating in the upcoming Chamber candidates forum! This is an incredible opportunity for the community to hear our plan for the future and have your remaining questions answered.

It is disheartening that the incumbents decided to hold their own forum at the same date and time, despite knowing about the Chamber event since this summer.

We reached out to the incumbents in an attempt to create one event where all 6 candidates could come together, but they were unwilling to even respond.

This is just another example of this board not listening to the will of the people and catering to their own personal agenda. We deserve better from our elected officials and it is time for a change!

True leadership and public service involves open and respectful dialogue. It is about working together for the betterment of our schools and community.

I am committed to being a school board member who listens, engages, and works tirelessly to represent YOUR interests. Together we can bring about the change Woodland Park actually needs!

Keegan Barkley

This is yet another example of how this current school board has fostered division in this community rather than unity and healing. If even one of those three gets reelected this November, we can see exactly what we’ll get…more of the same. Voters have a choice.

9/17/2023 Weekly Update

Last Week:

Here’s what’s coming up this week:

  • I’m hoping we can get some clarity about those three different candidate forums, especially the two overlapping ones. Stay tuned!

School Board Candidate Forums

Traditionally, the Woodland Park Chamber of Commerce would organize a candidate forum with a moderator directing the event. They’ve been doing this since around 2006, and report that they typically have 99-100% attendance at the forums they organize. They started the work on this one back in June…but just like the past twenty months have been out of the ordinary for this town, so shall this forum. The Chamber is telling members that the district is scheduling a competing forum for the same date and time as the Chamber’s forum. An additional (third) candidate forum has been scheduled by a local church with connections to Charis! So it’s shaking up to be a messy forum situation for a messy campaign season for a messy school board situation. Naturally.

Details are still sparse, but with lots of rumors floating around, I thought I’d summarize what we know about the forums:

October 2nd, Victory Life Community Impact Team (associated with Victory Life church) candidate forum. 6PM, High School auditorium. The moderator is state Senator Mark Baisley, who recently had a guest column published in the Courier praising the current board, and teaches the Practical Government class at Charis. Duane Sheriff is the founder of Victory Life church and a member of the Andrew Wommack Ministries Board of Directors.

October 9th, WP Chamber of Commerce candidate forum. 5:30-7:30PM, Ute Pass Cultural Center. I have not seen any announcement about who the moderator is, though there are rumors floating around social media.

October 9th, WPSD candidate forum. There is no public information for this one, though the WP Chamber of Commerce sent this email to members regarding that event…this is all the information we’ve found about this alternate event:

As President of the Greater Woodland Park Chamber of Commerce, it’s impossible not to reflect on the remarkable journey we’ve undertaken together. From the depths of the Great Recession of 2007 to 2009 to the unexpected turbulence of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, our community has demonstrated remarkable fortitude and adaptability.

At the heart of our Chamber mission lies a simple yet profound commitment: to advocate for businesses. We understand that businesses flourish when they can operate in an environment conducive to earning profits through the provision of goods and services. To uphold this commitment, we vigilantly monitor local, state, and federal legislation, taking clear and informed positions in support of, or opposition to, legislation that impacts businesses. We also recognize the value of neutrality on certain issues, respecting the diversity of opinions within our vibrant business community.

A pivotal decision made in 2006 was to begin hosting Candidate Forums, a decision firmly rooted in our unwavering commitment to impartiality. Unlike many organizations, we deliberately refrain from endorsing or opposing candidates, thus allowing us to provide a neutral platform for informed discourse. Over the past 17 years, we have organized forums spanning Federal, State, County, and Local elections, covering both partisan and non-partisan contests. In our region, non-partisan elections include but are not limited to those for the City of Woodland Park, Cripple Creek, Victor, as well as the Woodland Park RE-2 and Cripple Creek RE-1 school districts.

The objective of these forums is crystal clear: to educate voters on where each candidate stands on the key “issues” relevant to the office they seek. We prioritize insightful, issue-based questions that equip attendees or viewers to be informed before casting their ballot. Additionally, we’ve assisted in providing a local Blue Book on proposed Charter Amendments, collaborating closely with Charter review committee members and legal experts. These two initiatives—the Candidate Forums and the Blue Book—empowered voters with essential information, although we do acknowledge we are just one source among many.

In anticipation of our upcoming RE-2 School Board Candidates Forum, we followed our tried-and-true process, meticulously aligning with the election calendar’s intricate dance of petition deadlines, ratifications, and more. Moreover, thorough planning approximately nine months prior to the election date encompasses various crucial elements, including selecting an appropriate venue, appointing a skilled moderator, and ensuring a proficient timekeeper, among other key considerations. The Chamber has had the privilege of collaborating with a dedicated team of volunteers, individuals renowned for their unwavering integrity and extensive experience, who have expertly moderated our forums. These moderators have consistently garnered accolades from all participating candidates, who have expressed their heartfelt appreciation for the unwavering professionalism and seasoned expertise demonstrated throughout each forum.

We selected the RE-2 School Candidate Forum date, October 9, 2023 and promptly secured the venue. The announcement was disseminated through our Chamber and Community Calendar and shared with those active in the local School District in June of 2023. Invitations to candidates, however, were extended only once we received official confirmation of their candidacy. We received the official word from the School District on September 5th that the petitions had been ratified. The School District then informed us of the six candidates vying for three open positions, prompting us to send out email invitations on September 5th to each candidate via their campaign email addresses, followed by physical letters sent via postal mail.

These invitations conveyed the date, time, location, moderator and the rules of engagement for the forum, with an RSVP deadline of October 2, 2023. We have received three affirmative responses, with the remaining candidates having until October 2nd to respond. Remarkably, throughout our history of hosting Candidate Forums, we have consistently achieved a 99 – 100% attendance from invited candidates. Even in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, with the world teetering on the brink of lockdowns, we managed to uphold this record. This near perfect attendance reflects the integrity and commitment of the Chamber in conducting these forums, and it is gratifying to have candidates express their appreciation for our efforts in providing a platform that informs voters about critical issues before they cast their ballots.

In a world where information overload often leads to missed notifications or forgotten dates, we believe that the RE-2 School District’s recent invitation on September 12th to the six candidates inviting them to a School District Candidates Forum on the same date as the Chamber event, October 9th, was simply an inadvertent oversight or misunderstanding about the date.

In closing, we wish to assure our members and the Candidates that the Chamber will proceed with our planned event on October 9, 2023. Our primary goal remains unwavering—to provide a neutral and respectful forum where all candidates can confidently engage in a meaningful dialogue. We will pose questions that delve into the substantive issues facing our school, equipping voters with factual insights that will guide their decisions at the ballot box. We firmly believe that informed and engaged citizens are the bedrock of a vibrant democracy, and we are honored to play a part in this vital process.

This post will be updated as more details are learned about each event

More on the American Birthright standards for social studies

Check out this TikTok video providing more information about the American Birthright standards that our district adopted in January without public discussion:

@electrobrogers

Have you heard of the #americanbirthrightstandards yet? It’s spreading like a #virus in #colorado and is likely coming to your #schooldistrict too. #christiannationalism #americanexceptionalism #defendpublicschools #supportteachers #supportstudents #teachersoftiktok

♬ We Rise Against (Full) – Jonathan Paulsen

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)

August 2023

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).