Cool the TPS rhetoric

I hope that many posters on this site will read the entire editorial and pass along your thoughts. Before I comment on this Editorial today in a more public way, I would like to hear your thoughts, ideas and opinions either posted here or feel free to email me at fishertpsboe@aol.com.

One thing that I really question is what is the obstacle to change and reform in TPS?

Is this a further engagement of political distraction so the BOE and the district will not focus on improvement across the district?

And who is it that doesn't exactly support improving the educational process for all students?

When stories appear in the daily newspaper which often happens, only portions of comments get printed.

What I explained to Mr. Messina is that every candidate this time around adopted the message of 3 for change - Change and Reform. To the credit of Catlin and Myers many of the candidates ended up using the very words both Cheryl and Chris brought forth to the public first. That is very telling.

There is no fight on the TPS BOE, it's just some members are not backing down to support the idea that TPS must develop and adopt new ways of working together in our classrooms, every school building and strategically led by the BOE and Mr. Foley and his staff.

Certainly we have successes within TPS, but when you look at it across the board there are a large number of areas and schools that need to make significant improvement.

Why is standing up for that type of change and improvement so controversial? Or maybe it isn't controvesial at all and there are people who want make it more about the attack on individuals than really focusing on helping educate our children at a cost level our community can reasonably provide. We all share the right and responsibility to helping educate our students in this community.

The interesting thing about the original newspaper article is that Mr. Torres and I didn't even know that both of us had commented to the reporter but our comments were strikingly similiar.

What I see happening is that some changes may be on the horizon finally for TPS but more importantly, who controls what gets addressed and what doesn't.

In terms of implemental action steps and progress for TPS lets review them, a review and study of TPS conducted by the CEG some years ago was stalled in its tracks, then the more than 2 years worth of work by the actions of the Committee for School Reform to develop a strategic plan with vision for the system never resulted in any implementable actions. Lastly and most recently, the efforts bring an innovative Superintendent to TPS also failed.

As a representative of the community on the BOE working to serve the citizens and children of Toledo, I look forward to receiving your thoughts and comments.

Best regards,
Darlene Fisher

Please forgive my typo in the above heading...

Let's try it again....

Read and Comment

Thanks,
Darlene Fisher

...in addressing the fallacies in this editorial, but let's do this instead:

The same voters who elected Ford and Sobecki also elected Fisher and Torres...something The Blade seems to have forgotten. If Ford and Sobecki have a mandate, Fisher and Torres had/have one as well. And as Darlene points out in her own statement, Ford said 'drastic change' was needed. How is that any different from what Darlene has said consistently???

Fisher and Torres didn't create the 'turmoil' on the TPS Board. That turmoil was created by Larry Sykes and nurtured when the Blade took up the charge. I don't recall the paper criticizing Larry's outrageous behavior but they were quick to tell Torres and Fisher to 'go along to get along.'

And there's the problem. When the paper takes up the cause of the elected officials or fails to call them on their bad behavior despite evidence otherwise, it emboldens said elected officials to continue along the same path and serves to intimidate others who object to said behavior.

"juvenile fractiousness that has paralyzed the board in recent years."

The only juvenile behavior I saw was from those trying so desperately to maintain the status quo - and that wasn't Fisher and Torres. And the fractiousness was a result of that same struggle - between those who want change and improvement and those SAY they want change while DOING everything within their power to maintain the status quo.

The LAST thing I want on a board is complete agreement on all issues by every member. I think THAT is more of a problem than any public discussion of disagreements and then reasoned solutions as a result.

Here's the other irony: according to The Blade, the voters clearly have given Ford and Sobecki a mandate - BUT ... those same voters obviously made a mistake when it comes to COSI. You can't have it both ways, Blade editors. If voters' actions are to be considered mandates, they apply across the board. Perhaps this is why I stopped paying attention to what they write?

It sure looks like the Blade wasted little time trying to apply pressure to Fisher and Torres to go along to get along! It appears to be a distraction with the sole purpose of keeping us from investigating and resolving the issues before TPS and this community.

When I first read the story in the Thursday Blade, I knew the "attack dogs" would be out soon. So it comes as no surprise.

Is it appropriate to raise the issue of TFT influence on the new board members when contracts expire in March 2008 and there was significant support for Ford and Sobecki by the very union leadership they will negotiate with? Actually any prudent individual who took their public service roles seriously would have concern. Is it appropriate to share this with the community? It looks like Fisher's comments were taken out of context. Differences of opinion and how influence is wielded are legitimate topics for public conversation.

BTW -

This from the June 8, 2006 Blade article about the TPS board meeting and the formation of 3 for Children coalition of Sykes, Barnett and Steel:

....the coalition was lauded by Lisa Sobecki, a Point Place parent who said Ms. Fisher should resign as president if she cannot handle the responsibility.

"The three that brought forward the 3 for Children - that is an awesome way to move forward," she said.

Some might say Sobecki has been part of this coalition and trouble making from the beginning. Perhaps Sobecki would like to perpetuate this view for political gain. And who stands the most to gain from this gambit?

Finally, I think it amazing that the Blade would suggest that Fisher and Torres should get out of the way of reform - they could resign. The campaigns of the candidates this time reflect the message of the Urban Coalition which was articulated in the 2005 3 for Change campaign.

All the candidates adopted (appropriated) the message which certainly does ring with this community. However, if anyone is in sheep's clothing regarding reform it more likely to be Ford and Sobecki along with Steel. Fisher and Torres claimed this ground some time ago.

I'm just wondering - maybe the Blade also took comments by Sobecki and paraphrased them or took an item out to context. The Blade does seem intent on prolonging this distraction that they helped create.

I hope Sobecki is interested in serving the public's interest. But I really do believe she is the one that must prove she will vote on behalf of the citizens given her associations and past actions.

SFlagg --"I hope Sobecki is interested in serving the public's interest. But I really do believe she is the one that must prove she will vote on behalf of the citizens given her associations and past actions." I think we all know Sobecki is not interested in "serving the public." Her whole demeanor says "I," just like that is her favorite word by mouth.

What was going on at some of the polling sites on election day was abominable. Cheryl Catlin didn't stand a chance; she didn't have support behind her, no people, no money. She was very brave to stand up for what she believes in and knows is right.

I am ashamed of the inner-city, where I believe there was low turnout, and those who did turnout voting for a known name, regardless of record. They would rather vote for a sad-a-- former mayor, who approved the Ku Klux Klan coming in here, which led to an inevitable riot -- his legacy to the community -- than vote for someone who talked about change. No one wants to talk about Ford's real record. Then the Blade knew to link his name with who they wanted in, and for sure she'd get the inner-city vote. The Blade, which I stopped subscribing to over two years ago, wants to keep the status quo; keep certain people "in their place." Oh yes, let's add a TV ad showing Ms. Sobecki close to Black children, something she's not prone to do.

There were not even people at the polls to remind voters, or maybe tell them for the first time, who Cheryl Catlin is and what she stands for. Cheryl was good for gathering information, putting it together in presentable form; arming herself with suitable protocols and models to help address the problem. Everyone wanted these things from her, but it seems like they didn't really want her. Every candidate started mouthing her platform, but they don't have the tools to implement it -- not that that is or was ever their intention.

Three old people -- and I do mean old -- weathered the cold and the rain to pass out literature for Cheryl, plus the sample ballot for all the Democrats. I was one of those old people, and I was the only one at my site -- the wrong site.

Toledo is not a progressive city with "liberty and justice for all." Toledo is a hick town, with hick values and morals. RUN, PEOPLE, RUN!

Just keep standing up for what you believe. It is obvious where the Blade stands but I feel the access of information clears up who was responsible (hint he wears rhinestones and initialed cuff links and a cowboy hat).

I will state that a culture change is needed within TPS. Having seen it first hand as a parent and board member, there are systemic issues that come up daily that get in the way of helping students.

I'm very concerned about the pacing guides. Great idea but what follow-up procedures does the district have to ensure pacing guides are used in every classroom since their initation? I asked this question at the last board meeting. Answer was that we have staff reporting back to central office.

Good if that's the case but I want to see the data. Perhaps a Principal's report that they have seen these pacing guides being used in each classroom. That would require Principals to make classroom visits. Does their schedule allow this? How often would a Principal need to make contact with each classroom teacher to ensure the pacing guides are being used. Is this a topic discussed at staff meetings?

Perhaps the board needs to adopt policy to go along with the implementation of the pacing guides. What I'm most interested in is the reality of the situation.

Which could be that they have been distributed to each classroom, but may or may not be implemented. And since a pacing guide details what needs to be taught to the state standard on each individual week, then what happens with a classroom gets off schedule of the pacing guide? How can a classroom catch back up.

These are the types of things the local paper needs to understand. Good idea, implemented well, with buy-in from those who will use the tool and then follow-up with measurements and benchmarks is what is needed to obtain real change and real success.

Why would the local paper be against good ideas that are implemented and then measured and monitored?

Again it ends up being more about who is in control of the change process or could it be an effort to make change look as if it is occuring when that is not the case? The board still needs to adopt a set of goals - then each step of work needs to be tied back to those goals for the district to obtain substantial change. Can that occur? I'm sure many will agree a Culture Change is Needed.