Not yet published on this website as we’re getting more details:
Ken Witt fired Logan (IT) and Morgan (payroll) from district staff, saying their positions were no longer needed.
With Logan gone, some CORA requests are already overdue (beyond the max of 10 days); the Woodland Parks school district is in noncompliance with Colorado Open Records law.
Also Friday, we received confirmation that a senior staff member of the district admin staff submitted their resignation Friday, we believe in connection to those two firings. We’re under the impression not all staff have been informed of this decision yet, so we’re withholding details for now.
Episode 2 of the locally produced podcast ‘Voices of Reason’ is out, check it out here.
The board had their regular monthly board meeting on the 8th
The board struggled a bit with policy changes…they were going to do a second reading on GP-5 and approve it, but instead chose to revise it further, necessitating a second reading and vote to be held in the next meeting instead. This policy change is to help remove any focus on non-academic details, removing the emphasis on things like counselors and mental health programs.
Video of the public comments from the meeting can be viewed here.
We provided an update on the Curriculum Review status in the district driven by adoption of the American Birthright standards.
Efforts by the Board and Ken Witt to restrict freedom of speech in the district were summarized in this post.
We reviewed the numbers behind Witt’s claim that the Middle School is overcrowded and thus the sixth graders need to move out.
Here’s what’s coming up this week:
Wednesday will be a meeting for parents and students about the Career Start program. There’s been concern that the district’s rejection of any grant money will impact that, but what we’ve heard suggests this program is safe as it’s state funds, not grants. We’ll find out more Wednesday.
When discussing his decision to move sixth grade out of the Middle School, Ken Witt has consistently referred to overcrowding in that school. So let’s visit that point, and see what the facts say about space in the Middle School.
Last year, the board used a study from Cooperative Strategies to justify partitioning the Middle School into two schools, making room for Merit Academy. According to that report, the Merit Academy side of the school has capacity for 471 students, while the Middle School side has capacity for 432 students. These numbers do not take into account present or potential future modular buildings on the north side of the school build (Merit’s side).
Enrollment numbers for the ’23-24 school year are unknown, so nothing to base any decisions upon. However, we’ll look at what we know. Merit shows 27-41 students per grade. They are new to high school, and really only have a 9th grade this year. Assuming all their kids ‘bubble up’ into higher grades, they’d potentially be adding around 40 kids. Maybe they’d flush out some of the other grades closer to that 41 number. I consistently read that 90% facility usage is a nice target to shoot for, so let’s assume that (and ignore that our board wanted to put the Middle School at 94% capacity). Merit has a capacity of 423 students at 90% capacity, or an increase of 131 students (not counting the homeschool enrichment enrollment) – an increase of 45%! Perhaps they’ll hit that number, we just don’t know at this point.
I know the board is applauding Merit for ‘growth’ in the school district, but as page 17 of this presentation shows, 293 district students chose to go to ERBOCES (which Merit Academy was a part of at that time) in the ’21-22 school year – part an increase of 352 students opting out of the district compared to the previous school year. It’s clear, Merit pulled students from the district when they opened, then brought them ‘back’ into the district once the district absorbed Merit. This was not some radical growth in the district, it was just shuffling kids around, and to assume that Merit can now find 131 new students? Perhaps they’ll draw some from the Public Schools, but considering they’ve already been around for two years now, I question how many there left to get that haven’t already made that switch.
How does enrollment look for the Middle School? If we assume all current fifth graders move on to the Middle School, that’s 113 students being added, while 121 eighth graders leave for the High School. This bumps Middle School capacity down to 89%.
Actual attendance numbers for next year are unknown. What IS known is that the ‘overcrowding’ argument is based on very ambitious recruitment goals for Merit Academy; whether they’ll succeed is a bit question. If they needed more capacity, they do have existing modular structures on the north side, with space to add more. Perhaps they’ll need more space in the Middle School in the future, but for the ’23-24 school year, the data does not support any radical changes to the makeup of that building.
What this analysis is lacking – firsthand reports, that boots on the ground perspective that only the staff at the school can provide. Given the hostility Witt has shown towards them, I felt it best to not approach staff with questions and to just lay out the facts here instead. I also realize this doesn’t not take into account things like classroom size or number of rooms per grade, though when it comes to analyzing Merit, since they have control over those factors (they can limit enrollment, unlike the Middle School) I felt it OK to leave that part out.
Our board has traditionally ignored and violated their own governing policies, but seems intent now on instead of violating policy, changing it to align with what they’re going to do anyway. The latest policy under examination is GP-5. Proposed changes are to the first sentence of the policy, which currently reads:
Board members must represent the interests of the citizens of the entire school District.
In the last board meeting on 2/8/23, Witt did a first reading of the proposed change, which he suggested should read:
Board members must represent the educational interests of the students and families as first priority, as well as the citizens of the entire school District.
We expected the board to do their second reading, and vote, on this policy change in the 3/8/23 meeting (as stated in the agenda). Instead, David Illingworth offered forth a different proposal for GP-5:
Board members must represent the interests of the citizens of the entire school District, while always recognizing that the district exists solely to educate children and that parents retain a fundamental constitutional right to direct their children’s education.
Anyone reading the posted agenda would have expected a second reading of the policy change proposed by Witt in the last meeting. The fact that no board members appeared surprised (there was zero discussion on it when prompted by President Rusterholtz) by this change of plans does further suggest more discussion is happening outside of the public eye.
This policy change furthers the stated focus of the board to be academics only. The board is intent on cutting all Social Emotional Learning (SEL) programs and denying any grants (and thus calling into question continuance of any programs/classes funded by those grants). It remains to be seen how the board will view art, music, and athletic programs.
Here’s a video clip of just the public comment from the 3/8/23 school board meeting in Woodland Park:
If you missed Nate’s public comment during executive session, it’s at the end of the video above, or you can watch just that one speech in the clip below:
Do the Woodland Park schools have a bullying problem? Let’s take a look at district policy JICDE, which states in part:
Bullying is the use of coercion or intimidation to obtain control over another person or to cause physical, mental, or emotional harm to another person. Bullying can occur through written, verbal, or electronically transmitted expressions (i.e., cyberbullying) or by means of a physical act or gesture.
Given that definition, how would you characterize this email, from a manager to his employees?
This is coming from a guy that fired an educator at the Middle School, and eliminated the position of the high school librarian in retaliation for the protest her students organized in December.
Would you consider this bullying? Is our interim superintendent setting a good example for students?
The Woodland Park school board, and interim superintendent Ken Witt, have made several moves to clamp down on the speech of teachers and other staff in the district.
First was last December…the board blamed Sara Lee, a teacher at the High School, for the student-led protests. After placing her on administrative leave for about a month, they finally just cut her position at the highs school and moved her to Gateway Elementary (but then had to hire someone to do the position she was cut from…).
In January, the board adopted the American Birthright Standards. The Colorado Sun reached out to social studies teachers to learn more about this; one Middle School teacher asked district administration if it’d be OK if he talked to the Sun about this and Witt used policy KDDA to prevent him from doing so. Later, Witt used the newly adopted American Birthright standards to ban a book from a high school elective class.
What does policy KDDA say? Or rather, what did it say in January (it later changed…)? Here’s the January copy:
Also in January, the board reduced the public comment section in regular board meetings from 60 minutes, to 30 minutes.
Next up was the news about moving sixth grade to the elementary schools. After the middle school teachers protested this by staging a sick day protest, following by a massive public protest the following morning, Witt took charge. First, he fired a Middle School staff member, again citing policy KDDA and seeming to point blame at her for the sick day protest:
Next, Witt sent an email to Middle School staff warning of further retaliation if staff were to do something like this again:
Finally, we received word that policy KDDA had been updated…or rather, expanded, to silence teachers from saying just about anything about the district. Here’s the latest copy (we’re not sure if the 2/28/23 revision date is accurate or was back-dated; no announcement of this policy change was made):
So if a teacher has a kid in the district…they can’t talk to the press about their own kid even.
Is this legal? There are, naturally, differing opinions on this topic. If you read about the Supreme Court’s decision in Pickering v. Board of Education, though it really makes this seem like an unconstitutional move on the part of the board and Witt. The Brechner Center studies this issue more in this link. It’ll be interesting to see if our board ends up in the courts over all this.
Once again, strong public turnout led to an overflow room being opened up. When will the school board recognize they need to have this meetings in the auditorium instead?
Public speaking this time had a strong religious showing, with much prayer. We are making an impact, and Charis (presumably) is worried.
For GP-5, the board proposed a DIFFERENT change to GP-5 than what they read the first time. So, this is a first reading of the new edit. Previously, minor changes to the first sentence. Now, Illingworth proposes it to read, “board members must represent the interests of the citizens of the entire school district while always recognizing that the district exists solely to educate children and that parents retain a fundamental constitutional right to direct their children’s education.” Setting things up to further eliminate any sort of Social Emotional Learning programs from our district.
GP-9 change – would allow for the vote to happen in the same meeting as the second reading of a proposed policy change. This was a first reading of that change, not a vote.
Redistricting – will not affect the boundaries for what school each student attends. For the April meeting, two redrawing district maps will be presented. Three priorities: roughly equal population in each district. two, well consolidated district boundaries that reflect current geographic clusters. Three, preservation of current director resident districts. Brad Miller will be creating the maps (per Rusterholtz).
Next board meeting is March 22nd! It’s a ‘work session’, so no public comment period.
Video link is below. After they go to executive session, the camera keeps rolling, skip ahead to 1:36 for some additional public comment.
With Tina Cassens leaving the district, it raised the question of, who will be reviewing the curriculum as dictated by our board to make it comply with the American Birthright Standards?
The answer is Lis Richards, who is charging us $4700 for this work. You can read the description of the work to be done in this proposal (note, only phase one has been authorized at this point). Or read the highlights here:
Attend an introductory and organizational meeting at the district in regard to the curriculum alignment to the American Birthright Standards. • K-6 Review – Evaluate the vertical alignment of curriculum to the American Birthright Standards, their relation to the Colorado Academic Standards thus assisting the District in demonstrating that they are following the prescribed educational program approved and are meeting or exceeding state standards. • 7-12 Review – Evaluate the vertical alignment of curriculum to the American Birthright Standards (ABS), their relation to the Colorado Academic Standards thus assisting the District in demonstrating that they are following the prescribed educational program approved and are meeting or exceeding state standards. • Provide a report to the Superintendent which would include:
• Grade level report on social studies curriculum providing a matrix of completion toward vertical alignment and any lacking content (Some content may be covered in different grade levels and this may be noted.) • Recommendations to the Leadership provided in writing.
Episode 2 is out! Tune in on Spotify.
