Food for Thought on the MVRCS Fiasco!

Honestly, while I have my own opinions and thoughts regarding the Hogan/MVRCS fiasco, they are irrelevant as the story is just a symptom of a much bigger issue (in my opinion).


After reading through all the comments, just some thoughts:

1. Was this story leaked to the media out of concern for the students of MVRCS and their contact with the individual or was it leaked out of vengeance to the school administration? Few would argue with the fact that the school administration and board (specifically Kinnon and his clan) have made many enemies and have operated by their own standards for many years. It should not be ignored that the school DID hire Gately, who at the time was a publically disgraced, disbarred attorney and political figure, knowing full well of his (lack of) moral integrity. Whether the school knew or not (and I'm not sure they didn't), how can they justify hiring Gately and not this individual, after all, one actually committed crimes and the other didn't. At the same time, those who are familiar with the happenings of the school know that they have very double standards and expectations for their staff. Hogan may possibly be a victim of the past acts of Kinnon and/or the Board/Administration.

2. Is Kevin Hogan related in any way to Kinnon’s campaign manager and childhood friend Ron Hogan (whose children attend the school BTW)? If so, this would make one question if in fact the school did know about his past when they hired him and were hoping that the fact wouldn’t be discovered.

3. Regardless of Hogans sexual orientation and actions, one has to wonder why an individual who has limited teaching experience was hired as an English Department Chair to begin with. One would expect an individual in this position to have extensive teaching experience within the subject matter. If I remember the information correctly, Hogan had only a few years of sporadic teaching experience which would make his hiring for that position questionable at best. Given the current economy and the number of unemployed individuals located here in Massachusetts (some of whom must have more teaching experience than Hogan), why did the school hire an individual from out of state? Maybe a more appropriate issue for discussion would be the hiring practices of the school.

4. Does anyone else familiar with the ways of MVRCS find it interesting that so many individuals are willing to put their name out there in support of this individual? Those in the know would tend to agree that parents and students typically do not dare speak out publically (or even challenge them) against the school without fear of retribution. Would that indicate that the school has encouraged this and therefore, is in support of Hogan? This would again make us question if, in fact, Hogan is somehow related to Ron Hogan?

5. It is interesting that the school has chosen to put this teacher on paid administrative leave rather than just terminate them (as they are so famous for doing with those who go against them or who do not ‘fit’)? Is it due to the fact that this teacher has gained national attention and the school is finally forced to handle it in an appropriate and legal manner (as opposed to the sleazy and often illegal manner that they have become known for)?

6. While I don’t typically pass judgment on student’s individual abilities, does anyone else find the comment regarding the poor grammar and spelling of their students ironic given that they are supposedly providing a superior education? It should be noted that the ‘awards’ that they have received from ‘Newsweek’ are not based on the academic ability or successes of their students but is based simply on the percentage of their students who sat for the IB tests. It does not take into account their performance on such tests, just how many sat for it. It should also be noted that the school requires all of their students to sit for these exams regardless of their desire, ability, or interest. Additionally, the school paid to be included in the analysis. Sort of takes the air out of the balloon, doesn’t it?
7. MVRCS has been accused of breaking or bending many of the laws that govern them as has the Chairman of the Board, Neil Kinnon. They have repeatedly refused to follow directives that they have received from the DESE (re: transportation issues, changing of the board members, questionable lottery practices and re-entry of certain individuals, SPED dealings, open meeting/executive session requirements of publishing minutes, etc) and have done as they please for far too long. While their actions have been overlooked or ignored in the past, could this possibly be the incident that begins to process of holding them accountable?

Links to some interesting discussions:
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/malden/2011/12/mystic_valley_teachers_contrac.html

http://malden.patch.com/articles/students-parents-fox-comment-on-hogan-suspension

http://bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/2011_1201naked_truth_porn_teachers_dont_mix

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01/kevin-hogan-high-school-e_n_1123398.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/kevin-hogan-high-school-t_n_1121376.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/kevin-hogan-english-teacher-gay-porn-_n_1121554.html

Gotta Love It! So MVRCS -like!

We came across the following article on Boston.com regarding the current scandal over at MVRCS (http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/malden/2011/12/mystic_valley_teachers_contrac.html).

Had to love a few key points that we'll highlight here. We're sure most of you will know why these points stood out to us, but just in case:


Letter sheds some light on Mystic Valley teacher's contract

Posted by Matt Byrne  December 7, 2011 06:10 PM 

By Matt Byrne, Town Correspondent

...The three-page agreement, obtained by the Globe from Mystic Valley's attorney, John Hanify, after a public records request, lists conditions that could be cited as grounds to terminate Hogan: Noncompliance with school rules and personnel policies; dishonesty or misconduct that affects nearly anyone connected to or doing business with the charter, and a final clause that indicates a reason the school could use: "In the event that, in its reasonable judgment, your performance or conduct is incompatible with the educational principles or policies established by the Board or the Director."


Wonder how long it the Globe to obtain a copy of that contract?? Oh, it was probably easier than trying to get a copy of meeting minutes or responses to complaints because Kinnon and his shoe-shiners probably think that releasing a copy of the contract will justify any and all of their actions. We especially love the line "in its reasonable judgment" - nothing reasonable about any of Kinnons judgment, just justification and bullying to do what he wants. Then, what about "your performance or conduct is incompatible with the educational principles or policies..." - translation, you can be as sleazy, unethical, and immoral as we you want as long as we are sleazier, less ethical and more immoral than you OR it doesn't offend us. Lets not forget how many sleazy dealings Sir Little Man Kinnon has had over the years, or the despicable actions of his, ummmm, 'PR Director' Gatley. Let us not forget that by conduct, they are also referring to ones sexual orientation because Sir Little Man Kinnon is homophobic, we've heard stories of teachers being told they weren't 'a good fit' for MVRC due to their sexual orientation. Oh, how Sir Little Man yearns to rule the world! Oh to be King!

The article continues as follows:

"The contract also contains passages that seem to codify the school's reluctance to discuss the matter publicly, including language that prevents Hogan, except with express permission, from writing about the school in any way for five years after he leaves.
Hogan also agreed to strict rules against affiliating himself with, doing work for, or consulting Malden Public Schools and five surrounding public districts in Everett, Medford, Melrose, Stoneham, and Wakefield.
"If you choose to breach this agreement ... you may be liable for damages to the Board," the contract said."

We LOVE that the teachers contract now tries to restrict individuals from writing about the school for five years. We wonder if our lovely blog has anything to do with this restriction. In other words, unless you are going to write only good things about the school, you are not permitted to write anything. That usually (and as in their case) means that they have so much to be ashamed or fearful of being exposed that they feel the need to place this restriction on their employees. Funny, they do this frequently with parents who sue them also.

So scared their dirt will get out and they won't have control over it.

Isn't it also interesting that former employees are not permitted to work for the sending districts of the school. We're sure that is because they don't want the districts that  they pull their funding from to know exactly what is going on at good ol MVRCS. Scared all of their funding would dry up and they wouldn't be able to build athletic facilities, buy up real estate, and funnel money into hidden pockets instead of spending the money they receive on educating the kids. We have to even wonder if all of this is even legal and/or would hold up in a court of law...?

Oh, does anyone else find it humorous that with good ol sticky fingers Gately as their PR person that Eric Rubin has been acting as mouth piece for this and other issues lately? For those who think Eric is just 'another involved parent' - don't kid yourself, he is a long-time friend of Kinnon's and his wife 'works' at the school. Oh, and yes somehow, miracles of miracles, his son got in through the 'lottery'. Yet another staff member who had a child selected. So amazing!

Oh, good ol MVRCS, may you continue in your crooked, despicably, sleazy manner until Sir Kinnon Sleazy Pants manages to destroy his own empire!

Oh MVRCS, Those Nasty Double Standards!

Parents- Be Outraged, Demand Answers and Accountability - but not from FOX or the teacher~ from MVRCS regarding their hiring practices!

People on both sides are outraged regarding the recent firing (or administrative leave) of the HS teacher at MVRCS. Some think it was wrong for Fox to dig into the poor guys past, others are outraged that the guy who was teaching their children was either a gay or porn star (or both), and others are furious that he was hired in the first place.  The real issue isn't truly any of these, the real issue is much more concerning and complicated than any of these. The real issue is the hiring practices that have been going on over at MVRCS - both the double standards  and poor hiring practices and decisions that they are forced to make due to the ever-constant revolving door they have. The word is on the street here in Massachusetts, many teachers want nothing to do with the BS, poor working conditions, and corruption that MVRCS has become known for. This is why the school must constantly spend so much money each year (or claim to anyways) recruiting new, green teachers from out of state. Then, we would suggest you speak to any of the current teachers there, either they were hired as a result of who they knew OR they were interviewed and offered the position within a day or two of each other. Ask any of them if ANY of their references were ever contacted by anyone from the school? Yes, it may be a formality but its still worth at least ensuring that someone, somewhere is willing to vouch for someone who will be educating children.
We also find it interesting that the school takes issue with this fella's past yet is willing to have a disbarred attorney as their PR person (making more than most teachers make) who STOLE MONEY FROM AN ELDERLY COUPLE AND THEN ATTEMPTED TO BULLY THEM INTO NOT FILING CHARGES, and who, NEVER SERVED A DAY OF JAIL TIME FOR HIS CRIME. Hmmm, that double standard thing starts rearing its ugly head again! We kind of feel bad for the guy, Fox would have never had anything to with him or his past if Kinnon hadn't pissed off so many people.
Isn't it interesting that this guy was put on paid administrative leave (ask how many other un-Kinnected individuals have received THAT) when most are just terminated regardless of actual cause? Yeah, Kinnon must be shaking a bit right now - Civil Liberties, Discrimination, Wrongful Termination, and the whole LGBT Rights thing (Mr. Hogan would be well advised to possibly reach out to some other former teachers who may be card carrying members to that group - BIG case there).
Truthfully, what we find most up setting is that the school has knowingly had an individual willing to steal from elderly as their PR  person for 4 years (?) yet is now trying to claim ignorance and outrage over an employee who hasn't stolen from anyone, hurt anyone, his 'actions' were not common knowledge (as were Gateleys). Oh yes, its that 'different strokes for different folks' thing going on again - BUT THIS TIME, IT'S GETTING A WHOLE LOT OF PUBLICITY!!!!

PS - Mike B from Fox, we have a few people you could speak to regarding that rigged, campaign contribution funding, lottery over there at MVRCS - yet another great story.....for anther day!

Put This One Here, That One There, Oh, This One Could....Maybe?

Let the fun begin! We have heard from a number of former teachers that yet another massive turnover of staff at MVRCS is in the works. Once again teachers under the "leadership" (if that is what you want to call it) of Jen Mullen are jumping ship (and we hear some are leaving without having secured employment elsewhere). Of course the 7th & 8th grade teachers and HS teachers are also leaving in droves. Of course this comes as no surprise as rumors had been running rampant for some time. We came across the following postings for job positions and imagine that since the majority of 4th, 5th, & 6th grade teachers are leaving, they have moved a Kindergarten and 3rd grade teacher into one of these slots as a lead teacher. What we found discouraging is that although the school (as are all public schools) is required to hire certified teachers, the job requirements only make reference of it being preferred (or attainable within one year but most colleges require graduates to pass the MTEL before graduation and many who graduate without it are typically having problems passing the test). Further, the posting for the 'Substitutes' make reference for the potential of moving into a teaching position yet does not require certification. Both positions state 'Bachelors  Preferred' - yet another questionable statement and practice. Boy does this school have high expectations for their new hires....NOT! Most districts require copy of certification, college transcripts, and 3 recommendations to even get an interview. Apparently they do not feel these things are important or are so desperate for bodies, they'll take ANYONE. And we all wonder why so many teachers leave mid-year each year!                                                                                                                                                                                       Another ironic and totally fabricated piece of bs on the part of the school is their 'Equal Opportunity Employer' statement....no discrimination or retaliation? Really? Must be confusing themselves with a different school! We pity those poor, uninformed individuals who seek a position within this school as long as Kinnon is in charge.                                                                                                                  Equal Opportunity Employer Mystic Valley Regional Charter School is committed to maintaining a work and learning environment free from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, pregnancy, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital/civil union status, ancestry, place of birth, age, citizenship status, veteran status, political affiliation, genetic information or disability, as defined and required by state and federal laws. Additionally, we prohibit retaliation against individuals who oppose such discrimination and harassment or who participate in an equal opportunity investigation. This last line is our favorite because we all know how Kinnon would react to ANYONE standing up against him and his bully-team! Why don't we ask the individuals who have filed claims against the school in the past how they were treated once the school heard of the allegations. Funny, it doesn't say that preferential treatment (and higher pay, lower expectations) is given to those individuals who have connections to Neil Kinnon. Oh yeah, they can't, that would be an ethical issue (you know, conflict of interests).                                                     We are looking for candidates to be Permanent Substitutes for our Lower School campus. Candidates will also be promotable into classroom settings for all K - 8 positions, i.e. K - 6 classroom teachers and/or subject teachers at the middle school levels.   Position Type: Full-time Positions Available: 3 Job Requirements Massachusetts certification preferred or certification attainable within one year of hire. At least 1 year of relevant experience preferred Bachelors degree preferred Citizenship, residency or work VISA in United States required Application Questions There are no application questions required for this job posting.Of course not, that might limit the application pool and show ones theory of teaching. Why would we want to know that of any incoming teachers??? We have current openings in Kindergarten and 3rd grade.Wonder which poor K and 3rd grade teachers have been forced into changing grades? Levine? Flynn? Kozlowski? Penhaligone?   Position Type: Full-time Positions Available: 3
Job Requirements
Massachusetts certification preferred or certification attainable within one year of hire. Experience with Direct Instruction and COre Knowledge a definite plus. At least 1 year of relevant experience preferred Bachelors degree preferred Citizenship, residency or work VISA in United States required
	Special Education Teacher - Opening for 2011 - 12 school year, starting in early-mid August. Resouce room setting with pull out services along with some in class services. Qualified candidates will pull out students for tests to read for the students, plus MCAS and other standardized testing assistance, based on IEP plans. Position Type: Full-time Positions Available: 1 Job Requirements IEP writing experience required. 1 - 3 years of Special Education experience along with MA Special Education certification preferred. Bachelors degree preferred Citizenship, residency or work VISA in United States required

No Title 1 Funds? Now We Know Why!

We could never understand why MVRCS refused Title 1 funding even though they are eligible for it. We recently came across some information that shed light on why Kinnon wouldn't want to accept Title 1 funding - it's called MONITORING! We all know how much his royal arse hates anyone telling him how to do things or what he has to do. Yea, compliance monitoring are two words that probably make Sir Kinnon quiver in his boots! Of course, Kinnon and friends are VERY quick to point out that they are not eligible for funding assistance for facilities but never mentions that they ARE eligible for funding that they refuse to accept in order to avoid oversight and monitoring.

Off subject a bit but does anyone have the final count on how many teachers are leaving MVRCS this year? We hear it may be a record breaking year....thanks Kinnon. the board and administration for treating the teachers in such a demeaning, deplorable, unprofessional manner that none of them wanted to be there. We hear that a few chose unemployment rather than subject themselves to another year there. We must mention however that none of "THOSE" employees (who should be leaving as they are only employed due to their Kinnection) are leaving. And really, why should they, the gravy train is still running!

Title I Program Evaluation Procedure (http://www.doemass.org/titlei/monitoring/10Aeval_procedure.pdf)

The effectiveness of (name of district) Title I program is evaluated annually. The evaluation considers all aspects of the Title I program, including effectiveness of policies, involvement of parent/guardians and impact of equitable services for private school children, if applicable. The following primary questions guide program evaluation: (1) Has the Title I program been effective? (2) What has worked well in the Title I program? (3) What has not worked well in the Title I program? (4) How should the Title I program be refined? The data are analyzed and the results of these analyses are used as the source of evidence to determine the answers to the four questions.
1. Information is collected in the form of formative and summative student performance data; surveys; attendance data; and other data from students, teachers, and administrators. Additionally, a program evaluation survey is distributed to all Title I families in Title I schools. To the extent practicable, the survey is made available in multiple languages.
2. The data are analyzed by the Title I Coordinator with the assistance of other staff, as needed.
3. As necessary and appropriate, the results of the analysis are shared with Title I staff, Title I building classroom teachers, principals, district administrators, parents, and other stakeholders to determine necessary and important changes that should be made to the Title I program to better survey its students.
4. The results of the evaluation, including information about any changes to the Title I program, are shared with district and school officials and distributed to all Title I families in Title I schools. To the extent practicable, the evaluation results are made available in multiple languages. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Page

Title 1 Evaluation Proceduresm - (http://www.doemass.org/titlei/monitoring/procedures.pdf)
Parent / Guardian Communications
     District and School Parent/Guardian Involvement Policies: Districts and Title I schools must develop jointly with, annually evaluate with, and distribute to parents/guardians of Title I students (or, in the case of Schoolwide programs, all students) written parent/guardian involvement policies. The policies establish the district’s and each Title I school’s expectations for parent/guardian involvement, and describe how the district and served schools will involve parents/guardians in developing the district and school improvement plans and in reviewing school performance; provide 2010‐11 Title I Program Review Procedures Page 6
support to assist Title I schools in planning and implementing effective parent/guardian involvement activities to improve student achievement; build the schools' and parents' /guardians’ capacity for strong parental involvement; and coordinate and integrate parent/guardian involvement strategies with other programs (e.g., Head Start program, Reading First, etc.).

       Parent/Guardian Notification – NCLB Report Cards (updated annually): Districts receiving Title I funds must prepare and disseminate annual report cards for the district and each of its schools containing certain information related to assessment, accountability, and teacher quality. "teacher quality" - does that mean that pesty little number that indicates how few of their teachers are certified and/or have previous experience? Does it also include the ever present issue of the outrageously high teacher turnover at MVRCS (and this year will be no exception!).


         Right‐To‐Know (updated annually): Districts must annually notify the parents/guardians of each student attending any Title I school that they may request information regarding certain professional qualifications of the student's classroom teachers. In addition, schools that receive Title I funding must provide each individual parent/guardian timely notice that the parent's child has been assigned or has been taught for four or more consecutive weeks by a teacher who is not highly qualified (regardless of whether or not the teacher is being paid with Title I funds).

        Parent/Guardian Notification – NCLB Accountability Status and School Choice – if applicable: Districts receiving Title I funds must notify parents/guardians of each student attending a school identified for improvement, corrective action or restructuring of that school’s status and of options available to them. While a school receiving Title I funds is identified for improvement, corrective action or restructuring, the district is required to offer the parents/guardians of all students enrolled in the school the option to transfer to another public school served by the district that has not been identified for school improvement, if available. 

       Parent/Guardian Notification – Supplemental Educational Services (SES) – if applicable: If a school receiving Title I funds is identified for improvement (year 2), corrective action or restructuring, the district is required to offer students from low‐income families free tutoring, or supplemental educational services (SES). Rather than allow students to seek outside supplemental educational services (or SES funds), services are provided at the school. This not only keeps money in their pocket but also limits qualified individuals from informing parents of issues their children may have.


Needs Assessment Procedure: Districts are required to conduct annual needs assessments for each Title I school (both Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance programs) that include 2010‐11 Title I Program Review Procedures Page 8 data on student achievement relative to State standards, and input from parents and educators. The Needs Assessment Procedure briefly describes how the district and schools conduct their needs assessments in order to establish priorities for action and make appropriate decisions about the allocation of resources (e.g., people, materials, time, and fiscal, including all funds under NCLB). This includes a description of the quantitative and qualitative data collected and analyzed, who is involved in the analysis, how priority needs are determined, and how school improvement planning and documentation relate to this process.
What, and NOT allow them to do as they please and put funds towards an athletic facility before ensuring the educational needs of all children are met???? How dare they!

Targeted Assistance Program Plans (updated annually): A "Targeted Assistance Program Plan" is documented by completing the template provided (see http://www.doe.mass.edu/titlei/monitoring). The form provides a summary of what is being taught to whom, by whom (e.g., number and type of teachers / paraprofessionals); in which grades; and using which model (e.g., inclusion or pull‐out). Districts are required to develop Targeted Assistance program plans that are coordinated with and support regular education program(s) in relevant schools. Title I staff must be integrated with regular instructional staff in all activities, and Targeted Assistance programs must: (1) Use effective instructional methods and strategies that strengthen the core academic program of the school; (2) Use multiple, educationally related, objective criteria to identify children failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet the State's academic achievement standards (children in grades PK‐2 selected solely on the basis of such criteria as teacher judgment, interviews with parents, and developmentally appropriate measures); (3) Give primary consideration to providing extended learning time for served students; (4) Provide an accelerated, high‐quality curriculum; (5) Minimize the removal of children from the regular classroom during regular school hours.

Revised School Improvement Plans for Title I Schools with Accountability Status: Once identified for improvement, a school must revise its school improvement plan to address the subjects, grade levels and student groups in which the school did not make AYP. In developing or revising this plan, the school must consult with parents, school staff, and others. The plan must be revised no later than three months after the school has been identified for improvement. When schools are identified for corrective action status, the district plans for and implements corrective action steps stipulated in NCLB, as appropriate. When schools are identified for restructuring status, the district plans for and implements restructuring steps stipulated in NCLB, as appropriate. Yes, MVRCS has an 'Accountability Status' - would be interesting to the see how the Sir 'No Education in Education but Knower of It ALL' Kinnon would develop a plan that addressed the issues (if he could even stand to identify the issues!). Consult with who??? Parents and Staff - Not in this lifetime!

 Principals’ Written Attestation ‐ HQ (updated annually): Principals of Title I schools (Schoolwide or Targeted Assistance) must provide annual written attestation that all teachers of core academic subjects have met, or are working toward meeting, the NCLB Title II‐A Highly Qualified Teacher and Paraprofessional requirements. Copies of such attestations must be maintained at each Title I school and at the main office of the district. That would be fine except they can't keep teachers around long enough to write such an attestation! And again, we hear this year is no different as last years teachers are running for the doors!


Supplemental Educational Services (Selected Districts Only)
Supplemental Educational Services (SES) are additional, free, academic instruction designed to increase the academic achievement of students in schools identified for improvement, corrective action or restructuring under NCLB. Students from low‐income families attending Title I schools in their second year of school improvement (i.e., have not made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for three or more years), in corrective action, or in restructuring status are eligible to receive SES.

Let the Teacher Turnover Begin!

As the Administration continues to make their rounds with contracts for those employees they hope to keep, the rumors will be flying about who they DON'T plan on keeping. In true MVRCS fashion those staff members who the school does not want to keep will have their contract discussions held off until the school is done with them (i.e. the last day of the school year). It causes us great concern that so many of the teachers who had been with the school for years have left within recent years. Of course none of the 'Friends and Family' members EVER leave (and of course, why would they, they all have very cushy positions that requires little). At the same time it is always disappointing when certain teachers DON'T leave and return year after year much to the dismay of students and parents alike.
We have heard a number of rumors regarding who is staying, who is going, and who is LOOKING to go.It seems that the lead teacher for the 4th grade is actively seeking positions elsewhere. As this particular teacher is a known snitch who frequently rats out her colleagues, we are left to believe that the decision to leave is her own and wonder if she has shared her intentions with the Administration. Sadly, many former staff members have left MVRCS as direct result of this particular teachers sense of superiority and habit of snitching on her colleagues. Even more teachers have requested to not work with her and approached the Administration as a result of her being so incredibly difficult to work with. Unfortunately, as a result of her willingness to rat out her fellow staff members and willingness to play the MVRCS game of systematic elimination (of both teachers and students), she was permitted to continue in her role. We are of the belief that with her departure the 4th grade teachers have a chance of becoming a more cohesive and effective team. If nothing else, morale in the building has a chance of improving.
 Interestingly enough the school does give 'staying bonuses' to those teachers who are both welcomed to return AND plan on returning. We've heard that over the years teachers who have signed contracts, and ultimately accepted a 'staying bonus', yet have a change in plans have been sued. Since it isn't the end of the year and this teacher is proactively and aggressively seeking a position elsewhere, we are left to the conclusion that it is her decision. The question is whether she has or will accept the 'staying bonus' if offered to her. Inquiring minds want to know...Adios Rat-Girl!

$91,304.00 for Recruiting and Advertising…..REALLY?

Yes, that is what MVRCS reportedly spent for recruiting and advertising during the 2008 fiscal year. We mention this as the school continues with their reviews of teachers. Apparently, due to the expense of the Athletic Complex the powers that be are being less than generous to the teachers and staff. Considering that they spend such an exorbitant amount of money to recruit and advertise for new staff one would think they’d try to limit their future recruitment needs. Pay now or pay later. Interestingly enough we haven’t seen this expense on any of the public school budgets and while we have seen other charter schools spending funds on recruitment, we weren’t able to find any that spent anywhere near what MVRCS does each year. Unfortunately, this isn’t just a one time expense but rather approximately what the school spends each year. It is also worth mentioning that the school also employs a HR Director who is making over $80,000.00 per year AND pays a vendor to handle additional HR matters. Certainly makes one stop and wonder if the school is using their funds appropriately and reasonably.


To add insult to injury, we came across the following charter school law (located at http://www.doe.mass.edu/lawsregs/603cmr1.html?section=07):

1.07: Charter School Staff

Charter school teachers hired after August 10, 2000 must either:

(1) take and pass, within their first year of employment at a charter school, the Massachusetts Tests for Educator Licensure; or

(2) be already certified to teach in Massachusetts.

Regulatory Authority:

603 CMR 1.00: M.G.L. c. 69, § 1B; c. 71, § 89.

One may conclude that the schools recruitment and advertising fees are so exorbitant as a result of having to hire certified teachers and that they are working towards that end with the high turnover rate. Unfortunately we found that that is not the case. It seems that the school has chosen not to follow this law as they go about hiring, firing and losing the many teachers that pass through the schools doors. In reviewing the data of the past few years, the school typically employs between 88-95 teachers yet only 55-60% of them are actually certified. One would think that with the incredibly high number of new teachers they are forced to hire each year that they would be at least moderately increasing the number of certified teachers they employ. While not only is that NOT the case but to further exasperate the issue, they show a decline in the percent of certified teachers they employ since 2008. It seems that they do not feel the need to follow this law any more than they feel the need to follow many of the other laws and regulations that govern them. But then again, why should they, they are Mystic Valley – the school held to very different expectations and standards than other charter schools.

Our Information, Plus

 

We received some very negative responses to our last posting regarding the handling of both the lottery and waitlist at MVRCS. We noticed that while few took issue with the information we provided regarding the last lottery, many did take offense with the naming of individuals. We feel that our readers need to know that we do wrestle with idea of naming names and try to avoid doing so when possible. We do not wish to destroy anyone or cause harm to innocent individuals. The problem arises though when we have information to share that involves certain individuals. If we are too vague, we are accused of not being well informed. Alternatively if we name the individuals, we are accused of going too far. Additionally, we have to be sure that what we are posting does not put our sources in danger of being discovered or identified through specific information. Many times we have more specific information than we share but feel that it would jeopardize our position. It is a very fine line that we walk and we apologize if we have offended anyone.

A perfect example would be that of the re-admission of two of the Assistant Directors family members. When we were vague and just said that we knew it had happened, we were accused of not knowing what we were talking about. At the same time, when we did name the Assistant Director specifically (without mentioning the student’s names), others accused us of slander and libel. The fact is that the information is accurate and the incident did occur. We feel that as this is in violation of the laws that govern the school, that it should be addressed. If this were the only violation we were aware of we may not feel that it would be worth addressing. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

We have received an incredible amount of information from parents and teachers (both current and former) who have shared with us numerous documented examples of the school not following the laws that govern it. Initially this was dumb founding to us as we couldn’t imagine the school risking their charter by not following the laws. At first we thought that the Department of Education hadn’t been informed of their infractions. Unfortunately we found that many parents and teachers had contacted the Department of Education (we have copies of letters and emails). As we’ve commented before, we are disappointed in how the DOE has handled issues pertaining to MVRCS.

We must say that the laws make it difficult for parents and teachers to file complaints as they must first present the complaint to the Board. Many parents of MVRCS are hesitant to openly file a complaint with the Board out of fear of retaliation. It has recently been pointed out to us that the law reads “A parent, guardian, or other individuals or groups who believe that a charter school has violated or is violating any provision of M.G.L. c. 71, § 89, or 603 CMR 1.00 may file a complaint with the charter school's board of trustees.” This means that a parent does not need to identify themselves but could request an outsider to file the complaint. Additionally (and we feel even more important), the law states that “A parent, guardian, or other individuals or groups who believe that a charter school has violated or is violating any state or federal law or regulation regarding special education may file a complaint directly with the Department.” This means that should a parent have an issue pertaining to Special Education (which we think is a major concern at MVRCS), they no longer have to first present their issue to the Board of Trustees but can file their complaint directly with the Department of Education. For parents of Special Education learners, if your child is not receiving the services they are entitled to and/or your IEP meetings are not held according to law (including the timelines for receiving documents), then we suggest you file your complaint directly with the Department of Education.

The Lottery and Waitlist ……Powerball Anyone?

It seems that certain staff members (or any with children who are interested in sending them to MVRCS) and/or friends should play Powerball as they seem to have incredible luck!

We’ve blogged before about the issues relating to the handling of the lottery and waitlist at MVRCS but feel the need to do so again. In November the school held its annual lottery for incoming Kindergarten students. We didn’t give it much focus as we wanted to gather information and review the information before jumping to any conclusions. We were fortunate to have several different individuals in the audience who either manually recorded or (secretly) voice recorded the drawing. It’s taken us a while to put it all together and find the discrepancies but we found some. We had seriously hoped that the school had handled it with integrity and ethics this year but found otherwise. It seems that regardless that the school has an outside CPA handle the drawing itself, the school officials have somehow managed to continue manipulating the list to ensure certain individuals gain entry. We have heard from some reliable sources that not only has the Department of Education taken possession of the school’s waitlist, it is also now being managed by an outside source as a result of a change in the law and (we would imagine) wrongdoing on the part of the school.

We’ve compiled a comparative list of the numbers that were called and the final list that the school has published (located @ http://www.mvrcs.com/files/Lottery_Results_11_23_10.pdf). We see a number of differences and will be forwarding the data to the DOE for their review and (in)action, along with the names of the individuals who we believe will have benefited. It seems that being friends with Danielle Ferrara in the office is one way of ensuring entry into the school. We have also heard that parents also have the option of bribing their way into the school but have been unable to confirm the specifics. We’re also not sure if Ferrara is the person to bribe or if she is just the one doing the dirty work at the lottery drawings and/or working of the waitlist (either on own accord or at the instructions of someone else)..

As a side note, we have noticed that staff members of the school have unbelievable luck gaining entry into the school. We’ve mentioned before the high number of Kinnon’s and Finn’s and that they were all unbelievable fortunate to gain entry, never mind all the relatives of Henry Gennetti. Also worth mentioning is that relatives of both Finn and Gennetti who were so fortunate to gain admission not just once but twice! Somehow at least two families chose to leave the school and then somehow managed to be at the front of the waitlist when other children left (how that can happen is beyond us). We did hear that the school has some kind of allowance for this in their By-laws although how this can be is again beyond us as it is not permissible per the Department of Education (but then again, the rules that apply to all other charter schools don’t seem to apply to MVRCS). We have been unable to locate the school by-laws to confirm this but are continuing to work on it.

We have noticed that with a few exceptions, any staff member who places their child in the lottery or on the waitlist seems to gain entry. We’d heard about past teachers who somehow managed to gain access to MVRCS for their children after beginning to work there. Two good examples would be Dr. Biegler and Ms. Herrera. More disturbing is that it appears as though Ms. Herrera’s children got in ‘from the waitlist’ which we seriously question if they were ever on. We’ve come across other examples as well which leads us to believe that this was not an isolated incident.

Bringing the focus to current practices, it amazes us how many staff and faculty members have been fortunate enough to gain entry through the lottery and/or waitlist. Yes, we know that some staff members began working there after their children were admitted but it doesn’t seem as though many who work there and have children DO NOT GAIN ENTRY. Funny enough it doesn’t seem to just be limited to staff member’s children but also includes staff member’s relatives and friends. Isn’t it amazing that Gina McKinnon and Jen Mullen were both fortunate enough to have their children selected? Amazing, what luck they have. We did hear that Jen Mullen was not originally selected but did have a low number on the waitlist and made sure her child managed to get in (probably one of those non-english speaking kids that were systematically eliminated or encouraged not to enroll). Then again, it appears as though being a friend to Danielle Ferrara (or is she the person to bribe?) is one way of ensuring entry as a few of her friends that work at a popular Melrose seafood restaurant have managed to gain entry (one of which doesn’t even live in one of the sending districts). Who knows, we could be wrong but... It seems Val Doherty and Peter Connolly were fortunate enough to gain entry into the school for their nephews. This was in the year that a number of other staff members also were fortunate enough to have their children admitted. The current first grade class has a number of employee’s children sprinkled among it. It amazes us that out of only 125 spots that so many staff members, friends of Danielle Ferrara (not to mention Neil Kinnon) and relatives were selected from the lottery YET individuals who have been included in numerous lotteries have NEVER been selected. Isn’t it amazing? That is why we think the these staff members, family members, and friends should play Powerball – the odds are in their favor. Although the Powerball lottery isn’t fixed, is it? 

NOTE: We'd like to clarify that when we 'verify' our information, we aren't speaking to other parents but individuals who are either currently or have been employed by the school, a number of which have been there for numerous years. Through these individuals and our own resources (such as class lists and year books), we are able to confirm our information.

DESE 'Common Criteria' - For All Schools EXCEPT MVRCS!

We came across the following information at (http://www.doe.mass.edu/charter/guides/commoncriteria.pdf) and thought that it was interesting and worth sharing. The document that it was contained in was described as the ‘common school performance criteria’ from the DESE. Given our most recent blog regarding what we felt to be a less than adequate concern level on behalf of Jeff Wulfson at the DESE, it is interesting to see what MVRCS SHOULD be being evaluated on.  

Comments we found most interesting have been bolded while our comments are in red.

The Common School Performance Criteria (Criteria) have been developed using the three guiding areas of charter school accountability defined in the current regulations, 603 CMR 1.00 – faithfulness to charter, academic success, and organizational viability.

The purposes of the Criteria are:

to bring alignment to the criteria used across all aspects of charter school accountability, from the application process to the renewal process;

to provide charter schools with clear guidance about how the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (Department) defines charter school success and on what basis charter schools will be evaluated; and

to clarify the connections between charter school accountability and state and federal accountability standards.

There is a wide range of sources of evidence that will provide the data to help charter schools, the Charter School Office, and the Commissioner and Board of Elementary and Secondary Education know if a charter school has met performance expectations. A partial list of evidence sources is attached after the Criteria.

            Unfortunately, the wide range of sources that are listed at the end of this document DO NOT include concerned parents other than those chosen by the school to participate in an interview.

Mission, Vision, and Educational Philosophy
The school is faithful to the mission, vision and educational philosophy defined in the charter application and any subsequent approved amendment(s).

           We once again find ourselves drawn to the Mission Statement from the 2003-2004 Annual Report and wonder how true the Board is staying to their original mission statement. If, as is stated below, ‘that a first rate education is the birthright of every child’ then why is has the lottery and waitlist come under such scrutiny these past few years and why are only certain families permitted entry? We’re also not seeing anything in this mission statement (or even the most recent one) pertaining to creating a school that places athletic facilities above academic needs.

MISSION STATEMENT
To establish a school which provides the opportunity of a world-class education. The prime characteristics being a well mannered disciplined and structured academic environment. One which promotes and incorporates certain core virtues, as well as, our common American culture, both which are embodied in our Declaration of Independence and our United States Constitution.
The Mystic Valley Regional Charter School was founded on the following principal:

·          That a first-rate education is the birthright of every child,

·          That all children can learn,

·         That every child should be challenged to reach his or her full potential.

The overachieving goals of the school are to:
•
Demonstrate the heights of academic achievement that public schools can routinely attain when the advantages of charter school governance are coupled with new academic standard,
•
Offer area families new choices in public education,
•
Create new professional opportunities for teachers that permit them to succeed,
•
Graduate well educated, civic minded, principal adults capable of thoughtful, logical reasoning.

AYP
The school makes Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in the aggregate and for all statistically significant sub-groups.3
The school does not have a status for accountability purposes of Improvement, Corrective Action, or Restructuring.

          But the school does, and has had a status of Corrective Action and/or Restructuring yet nothing is done about it.

Diverse learners
The school provides services for all students, including English language learners and those with disabilities and/or special education needs, as required by law.
The school implements and follows a Department approved recruitment and retention plan.

            Yes, another big one in our book. The DESE has ruled in a hearing that MVRCS was not providing an adequate education for a student, parents and teachers have filed numerous complaints with the DESE, and we have been in contact on several occasions YET NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

As for the ‘approved recruitment and retention plan’, the DESE has ‘directed’ MVRCS to place recruitment ads in languages other than English yet to our knowledge, they have not.

Professional climate
Teachers are provided with feedback and guidance that leads to improved instructional practice and student achievement.

Teachers can’t approach any Administrator at the school for assistance without it being used against them. Teachers receive less than adequate training and guidance in issues pertaining to Special Education matters.
The school implements a professional development plan that effectively addresses the needs of teachers.

Little attention is given to ‘professional development’ other than the hearing more of the same from the Administration. At no time do they have outside speakers come in to speak on matters that would matter or make a difference to the teachers professionally.

Teachers are provided with structures for collaboration.
The school establishes a professional climate resulting in a purposeful learning environment and reasonable rates of retention for school administrators, teachers and staff.

The retention issue at MVRCS is as joke. With Neil Kinnon believing a monkey could do what teachers do, it is no wonder that they feel underappreciated and disrespected. Again, the only retention plan in place is to hire and retain as many friends and family members as possible – regardless of their abilities or qualifications.

Curriculum
The school’s curriculum is documented, articulates the skills and concepts that all students must know and be able to do to meet state standards, is aligned horizontally and vertically, and supports opportunities for all students to master these skills and concepts.

The part we find interesting here is ‘ALL STUDENTS’….yes, Kathy Kinnon that means those students that have IEP’s and require additional services. Unfortunately we’ve been noting how few of the Special Education students actually pass the MCAS tests.

Decision making and communication
The school has clear and well-understood systems for decision-making and communication. These systems result in a common sense of purpose for all school constituencies.
               

                A ‘clear and well-understood systems for decision-making’ ----yes, all decisions are made by Neil Kinnon and based on his many years of formal education and training within an educational setting. Oh yes, that’s right, he doesn’t have ANY formal education or training in School Administration OR teaching (in fact, he doesn’t have any respect for the profession of teaching!).

Roles and responsibilities
The school defines and delineates clear roles and responsibilities among board and staff.

In one of the annual reviews the reviewer made mention of his concern for the lack of delineation between the Board and the day to day operations of the school.

Board oversight
The board of trustees makes use of best practices to hire (an) effective school leader(s).

Yes, friends and family members who agree to follow the orders of Neil Kinnon
The board of trustees regularly and systematically assesses the performance of (the) school leader(s) against clearly defined goals and makes effective and timely use of the evaluations.

Yes, the Board assesses the performance of school leaders in a very unbiased, honest, and ethical manner……EXCEPT of course those members of the friends and family club. How  Neil Kinnon can assess his sister in law , brother, childhood friend, friends of friends, etc. in an unbiased, truthful, ethical manner is beyond us…..because it doesn’t happen!

The board of trustees operates with a clear set of goals for the school and has developed a set of tools for understanding progress toward meeting those goals.

The board of trustees manages the school in a manner that ensures academic success, organizational viability, and faithfulness to the terms of its charter.

Is a response even necessary for this one? As long as you leave out corruption, unethical behavior, conflicts of interest, putting sports before academics, and back room deals, no comments are required.

School leadership
School leaders administer the school in a manner that ensures academic success, organizational viability, and faithfulness to the terms of its charter.

Are we referring to Dr. McCleary who is given little say beyond the art that is placed on the walls or Chris Finn who has the job only as a result of his childhood friendship with Neil Kinnon (yes, a Business Manager would naturally progress into an Assistant Director position - - - right?). Oh, what about Kathy Kinnon who does little besides make sure she is at the Chinese Buffet on Chinese New Years? Note to Kathy Kinnon….faithfulness to the terms of the charter would mean that all the students receive an education, even those who are on your poorly written IEP’s.

Organizational planning
The school has realistic plans for program improvement, possible future expansion, and adequate facilities based on evaluation and analysis of data.

We like ‘adequate facilities’ on this one….yes, they’ll have adequate athletic facilities and really, who cares about adequate facilities at the lower campus. So they’re a little cramped in there, just think how great it will be to have a state of the art athletic facility for yet another friend or family member to manage!

Family engagement
The school involves parents/guardians as partners in the education of their children.
Families and students are satisfied with the school’s program.

Yes, parents are partners as long as they remember that Neil Kinnon has the final say and that he ‘doesn’t have to have open meetings’ for them.

Coordinated Program Review

The school receives minimal findings in the Coordinated Program Review (CPR) process and immediately addresses any areas of non-compliance.

Funny, some issues have been addressed and re-addressed in multiple year visits yet no corrective action has been taken. Board of Trustees issue for one.

Safety
The school establishes and maintains a physically safe environment for students and staff.
The school establishes an environment free from harassment and discrimination for students and staff, and effectively addresses the social, emotional, and health needs of its students.

No discrimination in this school but if a student does do well they use systematic elimination. That isn’t discrimination is it….? Really?

Employee qualifications
Employees of the school meet all applicable state and federal qualifications and standards.

Ok so only 55% of the teachers are truly qualified (i.e. certified to teach in Massachusetts), oh well.

Are you sick of highly paid teachers?

We found this on a facebook page and couldn't resist sharing it. Enjoy!

Are you sick of highly paid teachers?
     Teachers' hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or10 months a year! It's time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do - babysit!
We can get that for less than minimum wage.

     That's right. Let's give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to 3:00 PM with 45 min. off for lunch and plan-- that equals 6 1/2 hours).

     Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day...maybe 30? So that's $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day.
However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations.
LET'S SEE....
That's $585 X 180= $105,300 per year. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries).

What about those special education teachers and the ones with Master's degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children X 180 days = $280,800 per year.
Wait a minute -- there's
something wrong here! There sure is!
The average teacher's salary (nation wide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days = $277.77/per day/30
students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student--a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your kids!) WHAT A DEAL!!!!

Make a teacher smile; repost this to show appreciation for all educators.

Update: I'm glad that many people have shown their support for teachers by reposting this note, but I am not the original author.  I received this as an anonymous chain letter email, and I wanted to share it to support the public workers of Wisconsin.

Kinnon - Mudding the MVRCS Name....?

It is a well known fact that we have numerous issues with Neil Kinnon and the dictatorship he has created for himself. At the same time we do appreciate that MVRCS would not be in existence today if it weren't for the efforts of him and the other founding members. We have been very vocal in pointing out issues we find troubling such as the numerous conflicts of interest surrounding many of his actions and decisions, the hiring and retaining of individuals solely based on their association with him (regardless of their qualifications and/or performance), his disregard and demeaning manner in which parents of the school are treated, and the treatment of the teachers and staff of the school (who are NOT part of his inner circle). We have worked (and continue to do so) towards bringing the bigger issues to the attention of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, State Ethics Committee, Attorney General, Inspector General, and Governor Deval Patrick. While our efforts have been solely on issues pertaining to the school, it seems as though others within the community have concerns of their own and are acting on those concerns. It is our understanding that a number of state agencies have begun investigating allegations of corruption and wrong-doing amongst Malden politicians. Included within the issues being investigated are the many back room deals that are common between Neil Kinnon and the City of Malden (such as the park deal from last spring) that are conducted outside of the laws that govern their actions. We can't be sure what the end result will be or how this will implicate or impact our school but the issue remains that if Neil Kinnon followed not only the letter of the laws but the spirit of the laws as well, MVRCS would not be in a position to be found guilty by association. We will wait with baited breath as the investigation continues and will keep everyone updated as to the status of the numerous investigations currently being conducted by various state agencies.

MVRCS Evaluations - Every Wonder....? Wonder No More!

As a parent have you ever wondered what and how the teachers of MVRCS are evaluated? We've been able to obtain a copy of the evaluation form the school uses to assess the teacher and staff performance. We found a number of their objectives to be interesting and thought provoking. Our biggest concern is that while the issue of handling behavioral students is mentioned (c. Individual student behavior management plans are implemented correctly), nowhere is it mentioned about teachers correctly implementing IEP goals and objectives or working/communicating with the Special Education staff concerning students with learning disabilities. To us, this shows how little thought and importance students with learning disabilities are given by the Board and/or Administration. Also note how  nothing is mentioned concerning the well being of students, positive communications with parents, and/or effectiveness with individual students.
We also felt that the lack of focus on any sort of professional responsibilities' (that you would typically see in a school evaluation form) such as understanding their legal and moral responsibilities, ability to convey knowledge of their subject matter, takes initiative both in and out of the classroom, use of professional judgement to ensure success of all students, works actively to involve parents in child's school life, use of resources to ensure student success both in and out of classroom, overall well being of students. No mention of knowledge (even general) about Special Ed issue knowledge or No Child Left Behind knowledge. The list could go on but so much is missing and too much focus is given to the success of the school rather than to ensure the success of the students.
Our comments are in red.

1.       Student Achievement & Instructional Implementation (35%)

a.       Students attain targets for lesson progress and mastery test scores (generally, student scores are within the allowable range unless there are relevant extenuating circumstances).
      The reason most 'student scores are within the allowable range) is because the students are grouped according to ability level. The unfortunate aspect is that if a 5th grader is working at a 3rd grade level, they will be placed within a group of similar students. The students will, for the most part, achieve passing or acceptable grades. The issue is that not only are they NOT working at grade level but parents are given the false impression that their child is doing well in school. MVRCS has been known to retain these students for failing to achieve a passing score on MCAS even when the child has earned A's and B's throughout the year. Of course part of this is systematic elimination.

b.      Students’ scores improve on independent standardized tests and other independent assessments.

c.       Students achieve targeted performance in other subjects on available measures.

d.      Individual faculty member implements all curricula (e.g. attaining 90% correct student responses, demonstrating strong lesson presentation skills, using appropriate correction procedures, monitoring of students’ independent work in class, ,and using of appropriate signals).

e.      Individual faculty member effectively implements other curricula, assessments, parent progress reports, and report cards developed, or selected, by the Mystic Valley Regional Charter School, and appropriately assigns homework and corrects papers.
      Within this category it seems as though too much focus is given to testing and assessment rather than ensuring that students learn (not always the same thing). This reminds us of the situation with the Robert Hughes Charter School where the teachers were instructed to coach or guide students during MCAS testing to ensure high scores for the school. 

2.       Promotion of Positive School Image (10%)

a.       Individual faculty member contributes to a measure impact on enrollment (e.g. increased enrollment is linked to parent satisfaction with individual faculty member, or conversely, word-of-mouth, and/or independent marketing student attrition is caused by dissatisfaction with the individual faculty member)
      This doesn't even seem as though it should fall within a teachers evaluation. The focus should be on the students, NOT the school. If they are so concerned about student attrition then why are they not concerned with the dissatisfaction of many special education (or diverse learners) students who leave as a result of a less than impressive Special Education Department and the leadership of that department. We wonder how Kathy Kinnon scores within this category.

3.       Classroom/Behavior Management (20%)

a.       Faculty member demonstrates the effective use of time, smooth transitions between activities, effective room arrangements, appropriate movement, clear expectations for student conduct, a greater frequency of praising students to correcting them, use of the School’s character curriculum vocabulary, effective and appropriate use of reward systems, proper referrals to the School Director’s office, and fairness and consistency in recognizing negative behavior and imposing consequences/restitution.
      Our course fairness and consistency in recognziing negative behavior and imposing consequences/restitution for those un-Kinnected students.

b.      Students demonstrate instructional/task focus and appropriate character virtues in the classroom, as well as appropriate conduct in the halls, restrooms, play areas, and other non-classroom environments.

c.       Individual student behavior management plans are implemented correctly. 
      Again, no mention of IEP's for learning disabilities. This is very alarming to us. 

4.       Performance of Duties (15%)

a.       Individual faculty member faithfully, diligently, and effectively implements the policies and procedures of the Mystic Valley Regional Charter School, demonstrating a strong work ethic and a positive attitude. The individual is punctual and meets other basic organizational expectations, including organizing student extracurricular activities and fulfilling such assigned duties as morning monitoring, dismissal monitoring, bus monitoring, and recess monitoring.

5.       Interpersonal Skills (10%)

a.       Individual faculty member works well with other School staff, contributes to the development of a collegial work culture, participates in informal professional development discussions, shares expertise with colleagues, and participates in team planning meetings.
      As long as it doesn't touch upon any of the topics covered in the next category, 'Professionalism'. 

6.       Professionalism (10%)

a.       Individual faculty member shows an understanding of professional behavior in the areas listed below:

                                                               i.      Communication with the Leadership Team. The individual faculty member directs communication about a conflict, issue, concern, or problem to the members of the Leadership Team of the Lead Teacher. The individual faculty member does not discuss any of the above with colleagues that are not directly involved with the issue in question. The individual faculty member does not discuss any of the above issues with parents. 
                                    It continues to amaze us that staff members are not permitted to discuss any 'conflicts, issues, concerns, or problems' with student's to their parents. Why is so much focus paid to these types of issues? How does this impact the learning of the students?

                                                             ii.      Discussion of Salary, Performance Based Raises or any other Compensation. The individual faculty member directs any and all communication concerning any of the topics listed above with the members of the Leadership Team. The individual faculty member does not, under any circumstances, discuss any issues related to compensation with other members of the faculty, staff, or parents.  
                                    Again, they will be terminated if it is discovered that a discussion was had. We do know that they talk about such things but no one ever dares admit to it out of fear of being terminated. We heard of one 'Kinnected' individual who scored originally well below 60 in their initial evaluation yet over the years slowly improved 2 points per year but is still under the acceptable mark. YET IS STILL EMPLOYED THERE!

                                                            iii.    Discussion of Confidential Information regarding students. The individual faculty member directs communication of confidential information regarding students to members of the Leadership or Education Teams. The individual faculty member does not discuss confidential information regarding students with other members of the faculty, staff or parents.  
                                    One staff member has told us that although this should be common practice, it is not. Also, the reason this is included is not for the protection of the students but rather to limit teachers coming to similar conclusions and joining forces when issues arise regarding students.