School board disaster
I have no real insights on why the BOE made this decision, but FWIW my high schooler thinks the organization of the high school has deteriorated significantly under Principal Sanchez, resulting in increasing chaos.
The vote hasn’t been taken yet. They’re discussing Ann Bodnar now then voting on renewing her contract.
I thought we had moved on from backroom secret deal making on the BOE, but clearly we haven't. I'm extremely disappointed, especially in the BOE President Kaitlin Wittleder. Here is part of her candidate statement when she ran for the BOE (I have bolded certain words for emphasis):
Why I’m Running
I’m running for the Board of Education because I believe we can do better. We live in two remarkable towns. Our unique community presents us with an opportunity to deliver a best-in-class education for a wide variety of learners. To achieve that, we need a BOE that commits itself to working harmoniously to fashion clear direction for the Superintendent, that insists upon accountability measures for educational improvements, and that ensures there is effective two-way communication with our constituents – the community and, especially our students.
I want to be a positive force for change on the Board of Education, and for our students. As an elected Board Member, I will commit to being an independent but collaborative voice within the BOE, ensuring various viewpoints are not only heard but considered. This district has been stalled on outcomes for far too long. I believe a different leadership style, different ideas to solve age-old challenges and different accountability expectations are what we need to shore up our operational infrastructure and move this district forward. All of that starts with redefining how the BOE governs.
DanDietrich said:
Our old school board did too much in private, so we voted them out. Now our new board has decided to fire Principal Sanchez without any discussion. Six of them met and decided this. This is a travesty.
So this didn’t happen. His contract was renewed by a majority vote of the board just now.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I think you must have heard a rumor.
yahooyahoo said:
I thought we had moved on from backroom secret deal making on the BOE, but clearly we haven't. I'm extremely disappointed, especially in the BOE President Kaitlin Wittleder. Here is part of her candidate statement when she ran for the BOE (I have bolded certain words for emphasis):
Why I’m Running
I’m running for the Board of Education because I believe we can do better. We live in two remarkable towns. Our unique community presents us with an opportunity to deliver a best-in-class education for a wide variety of learners. To achieve that, we need a BOE that commits itself to working harmoniously to fashion clear direction for the Superintendent, that insists upon accountability measures for educational improvements, and that ensures there is effective two-way communication with our constituents – the community and, especially our students.I want to be a positive force for change on the Board of Education, and for our students. As an elected Board Member, I will commit to being an independent but collaborative voice within the BOE, ensuring various viewpoints are not only heard but considered. This district has been stalled on outcomes for far too long. I believe a different leadership style, different ideas to solve age-old challenges and different accountability expectations are what we need to shore up our operational infrastructure and move this district forward. All of that starts with redefining how the BOE governs.
After a long, emotional meeting with dozens of speakers (including numerous students, Mayor Dafis and ex-Mayor McGehee) speaking on behalf of both Principal Sanchez and Ann Bodnar, both were retained, so the OP clearly jumped the gun. I know BOE President Wittleder voted to keep Principal Sanchez and I believe Ann Bodnar too, but I can't be positive as the mike was jumping in and out.
District Language Arts Supervisor Jane Bean-Folkes was also up for renewal and things got a little crazy. Initially, the vote went 5-4 against her. Then they moved onto the Bodnar vote. When that finished, they were about to start discussing the Sanchez vote and BOE Member Johanna Wright, attending the meeting via Zoom, said that she was confused about which vote was which and wanted to change her No vote on Bean-Folkes. They decided to complete the Sanchez vote, then went back and re-did the Bean-Folkes vote, with Wright voting Yes this time and Bean-Folkes being retained 5-4.
chalmers said:
yahooyahoo said:
I thought we had moved on from backroom secret deal making on the BOE, but clearly we haven't. I'm extremely disappointed, especially in the BOE President Kaitlin Wittleder. Here is part of her candidate statement when she ran for the BOE (I have bolded certain words for emphasis):
Why I’m Running
I’m running for the Board of Education because I believe we can do better. We live in two remarkable towns. Our unique community presents us with an opportunity to deliver a best-in-class education for a wide variety of learners. To achieve that, we need a BOE that commits itself to working harmoniously to fashion clear direction for the Superintendent, that insists upon accountability measures for educational improvements, and that ensures there is effective two-way communication with our constituents – the community and, especially our students.I want to be a positive force for change on the Board of Education, and for our students. As an elected Board Member, I will commit to being an independent but collaborative voice within the BOE, ensuring various viewpoints are not only heard but considered. This district has been stalled on outcomes for far too long. I believe a different leadership style, different ideas to solve age-old challenges and different accountability expectations are what we need to shore up our operational infrastructure and move this district forward. All of that starts with redefining how the BOE governs.
After a long, emotional meeting with dozens of speakers (including numerous students, Mayor Dafis and ex-Mayor McGehee) speaking on behalf of both Principal Sanchez and Ann Bodnar, both were retained, so the OP clearly jumped the gun. I know BOE President Wittleder voted to keep Principal Sanchez and I believe Ann Bodnar too, but I can't be positive as the mike was jumping in and out.
District Language Arts Supervisor Jane Bean-Folkes was also up for renewal and things got a little crazy. Initially, the vote went 5-4 against her. Then they moved onto the Bodnar vote. When that finished, they were about to start discussing the Sanchez vote and BOE Member Johanna Wright, attending the meeting via Zoom, said that she was confused about which vote was which and wanted to change her No vote on Bean-Folkes. They decided to complete the Sanchez vote, then went back and re-did the Bean-Folkes vote, with Wright voting Yes this time and Bean-Folkes being retained 5-4.
Chalmers - there were a majority of BOE members that planned to oust Sanchez tonight and they kept it quiet from the other BOE members. However, their plan was discovered earlier in the day and scores of angry parents, students, and teachers showed up at the meeting to speak in support of Sanchez. Also, hundreds of emails were sent to the BOE in just a single day.
They severed Sanchez and others from the renewal resolution so they could be voted on individually. You don't do that unless you are intending to vote against them.
yahooyahoo said:
Chalmers - there were a majority of BOE members that planned to oust Sanchez tonight and they kept it quiet from the other BOE members.
I’m curious about the source of this information. How was the plan discovered and by whom? Was their documentation like an email or text chain that revealed the board members’ intentions?
The outcome doesn’t reflect the accusation, at any rate, so either some of the six board members were swayed from their intentions by the impassioned crowd, or there was something else going on.
The decision to separately consider the contract renewals of three people is unusual. But the Board is entitled to do so if a majority believe there’s a reason.
yahooyahoo said:
They severed Sanchez and others from the renewal resolution so they could be voted on individually. You don't do that unless you are intending to vote against them.
Objection. Speculation.
I didn't jump the gun one bit. The six of them decided to fire Sanchez without talking to the other three. Word got out, the people objected, and they changed their minds.
DanDietrich said:
I didn't jump the gun one bit. The six of them decided to fire Sanchez without talking to the other three. Word got out, the people objected, and they changed their minds.
It's kind of hard to refute a statement along the lines of "I was cast to star in that Avengers movie, but then the suits got worried and they went with Chris Pratt instead."
You said that six BOE members decided to fire Principal Sanchez without any discussion. Seemingly, there were two hours of discussion in executive session and another three-and-a-half in the open meeting. Was there a point where those six members were leaning toward firing him? It's certainly possible and that's the version we're hearing most from the rumor mill.
Did those six members sit down in the horseshoe intending to fire Mr. Sanchez and Ms. Bodnar, only to be swayed by the massive public support they received? That's certainly possible, too, but if they were still open to public opinion, they hadn't actually made their decision yet.
Steve said:
I believe that Wittleder voted AGAINST all three of them.
I watched it. She didn't.
My understanding was that Sanchez was notified during the day that this was coming, and probably Bodner as well. How else would someone have been able to post a heads up on FB that this was happening at around 4:30? When I emailed the board only one member replied, and he was stunned to hear about it. That tells me that it was decided beforehand and that at least one but probably all three other members didn't know it was coming. If it had not been for that FB heads up the room would not have been filled with parents last night. This has also been discussed at length on both the lounge and the high school group. I'm not a close follower of the BOE, but they seem to specialize in shooting themselves in the foot. This was a great way, however, to get the conversation away from how they thought it was a good idea to let a movie film in the school while kids were taking AP tests.
What is the consensus as to why there was any effort to consider firing two very popular employees? BOE President Wittleder made reference to struggling student achievement, particularly post-COVID. Was that it? I've always liked Mr. Sanchez a lot, and agreed with the heartfelt messages of support. But of course, I don't really know about any student's academic achievement besides my own.
The curriculum problems in the district are legion but they date back years and years before Ms. Bodnar took the job. I don't think there's anyone in the world who could straighten them out in the less than a year she's been here.
chalmers said:
I watched it. She didn't.
I stand corrected. She was able to read the room ever so slightly and voted to reappoint Principal Sanchez. She certainly seemed prepared to vote against Sanchez up until her colleagues left her blowing in the wind on the Bodnar vote. She voted against Supervisor Bean Folkes at 5:05:55 and against Asst. Supt. Bodnar at 5:14:43.
chalmers said:
The curriculum problems in the district are legion but they date back years and years before Ms. Bodnar took the job. I don't think there's anyone in the world who could straighten them out in the less than a year she's been here.
^^^^THIS. When Wittleder was essentially blaming Asst. Supt. Bodnar for not solving the curriculum and instructions problems in the 10 months that she's was in that position displayed a stunning lack of understanding of both educational systems and life in general. It was only topped by Board Member Wright not knowing what her votes meant.
DanDietrich said:
My understanding was that Sanchez was notified during the day that this was coming, and probably Bodner as well. How else would someone have been able to post a heads up on FB that this was happening at around 4:30?
He would have been informed that his contract renewal was being voted on directly by the board as opposed to being included in the whole group. The notification is called a Rice Notice, and must be delivered to the individual at least 48 hours before the meeting. So if he was informed yesterday afternoon that his contract renewal was being debated and voted on last night then the BOE was not following the law.
And he was given a choice about the deliberations regarding that vote. They could be held in public or privately in executive session. If held in the executive session, the individual is not allowed to attend. If it’s in an open session, pretty much any records about the employee are fair game to discuss.
This is all NJ state law.
He (and the other two who were individually voted on) clearly chose to have those discussions kept among the board in executive session. I think a couple of board members came very close to saying things in the open session that should not have been shared, but they stayed within bounds.
As for how this information became public, I can’t speak to that. One of the board members accused the board president of obfuscating the information. She rebutted that by saying the information was available to all the board members prior to the meeting.
I still haven’t seen anyone present evidence that six board members had already decided to vote against renewing Sanchez’ contract. It seems that six of them wanted to have a separate vote on each of those three individuals. And that certainly would make one think their intent was to remove those employees. But maybe they just felt strongly that those three educators, all of whom are in extremely important roles in the district, needed more in-depth examination.
There were a large number of teacher complaints regarding Ms Bean-Folkes. This came up at the last board meeting. That might explain the desire to sever her contract renewal discussion and vote. Ms Bodnar is Ms Bean-Folke’s supervisor and new to that position.
I haven’t a clue about Sanchez. He’s got one more year for tenure eligibility. There was the incident last week when firecrackers were set off in the high school but. I lockdown was called. Maybe they wanted to discuss whether that was grounds for dismissal of the principal.
Last thing I will say is that many years ago a friend got a Rice notice in their tenure year. The board voted to renew this person’s contract. So this is not unheard of, nor is it a foregone conclusion that it means the employee will not be retained.
Steve said:
I stand corrected. She was able to read the room ever so slightly and voted to reappoint Principal Sanchez. She certainly seemed prepared to vote against Sanchez up until her colleagues left her blowing in the wind on the Bodnar vote. She voted against Supervisor Bean Folkes at 5:05:55 and against Asst. Supt. Bodnar at 5:14:43.
You’re speculating a lot here. You have no idea she was planning to vote against renewing Sanchez’ contract.
There’s also no basis to conflate the votes regarding Bean Folkes and Bodnar (which seem connected) with the vote regarding Sanchez.
I also hope that our elected officials vote based on the facts they are privy to, their personal opinions and what they think is best for their constituents. If Board President Wittelder felt that Sanchez should not be renewed I hope she wouldn’t change her mind because of the crowd in the room. There are a couple thousand students and their families who would be affected by her vote, not just the people who came to the meeting.
I'm speculating just as you are. Steve Latz (not me) posted in one of the FB groups that the Rice notices were not timely. Dr. Telesford was not told that these were going to be severed until earlier in the day yesterday. Mr. Vadlamani made similar comments. How is it decided who gets a Rice notice and when? Does there need to be a preliminary vote? Do all people up for reappointment get one? I have no idea what the answer is, but Ms. Wittleder's comment that all Board members had access to personnel materials was clearly a misdirection. Dr. Telesford's comment related to the fact that he had no reason to ask for those files (at least as to Ms. Bodnar and Mr. Sanchez) because no issues had been raised previously that would indicate an interest in not reappointing them.
Steve said:
I'm speculating just as you are. Steve Latz (not me) posted in one of the FB groups that the Rice notices were not timely. Dr. Telesford was not told that these were going to be severed until earlier in the day yesterday. Mr. Vadlamani made similar comments. How is it decided who gets a Rice notice and when? Does there need to be a preliminary vote? Do all people up for reappointment get one? I have no idea what the answer is, but Ms. Wittleder's comment that all Board members had access to personnel materials was clearly a misdirection. Dr. Telesford's comment related to the fact that he had no reason to ask for those files (at least as to Ms. Bodnar and Mr. Sanchez) because no issues had been raised previously that would indicate an interest in not reappointing them.
I think you ask some good questions here.
Steve said:
How is it decided who gets a Rice notice and when? Does there need to be a preliminary vote? Do all people up for reappointment get one?
On the first two questions, I’d start by asking the BOE’s Personnel Committee, whose members are listed as Eckert (chair), Wittleder, Wright and Winkfield.
On the third question: Not according to Kean Federation of Teachers v. Morrell (2018). The State Supreme Court sided with Morrell (a trustee) and the university, which argued that “Rice’s holding was narrow and designed to effectuate notice only to personnel who will be negatively impacted by discussions or actions conducted in a closed session.”
DanDietrich said:
This was a great way, however, to get the conversation away from how they thought it was a good idea to let a movie film in the school while kids were taking AP tests.
My kiddo said that the school got $20k/day for the filming... so that was probably why someone thought it was a good idea.
The AP testing conditions were awful - but not just due to the filming, but due to putting them in a room right next to the prom tickets sale room, and scheduling them across the 3 lunch periods with the unreachable windows open to the kids going crazy outside....
sprout said:
The AP testing conditions were awful - but not just due to the filming, but due to putting them in a room right next to the prom tickets sale room, and scheduling them across the 3 lunch periods with the unreachable windows open to the kids going crazy outside....
Choice of room notwithstanding, aren’t AP exam times set by the College Board?
DaveSchmidt said:
sprout said:
The AP testing conditions were awful - but not just due to the filming, but due to putting them in a room right next to the prom tickets sale room, and scheduling them across the 3 lunch periods with the unreachable windows open to the kids going crazy outside....
Choice of room notwithstanding, aren’t AP exam times set by the College Board?
You may be right. But Principal Sanchez seemed to somewhat misrepresent the times in his quote to the Village Green as my kid had two AP tests that started at 11:30 am and went through the lunch periods into the afternoon, and one that went from 2pm-4pm:
"Asked to comment, CHS Principal Sanchez told Village Green that the bulk of filming is happening after hours and after the AP tests, which take place in the mornings."
He may have been talking about Friday. I think testing was only in the morning on Friday. And 20k per day is too low. I've been on jobs that paid far more than that for locations. Usually if there were prep days we would pay less for those, and more for shooting days.
Maybe it was low due to the limited hours they were allowed to use the location for filming? Or is that still too low?
I don't think that they were limited. They could shoot 14 hour days if they wanted to, I think. Just some start times were limited . And usually parts of the crew start 3 hours before the camera crew.
Please forgive me for joining this thread by including a link covering a nationwide disaster in education…
Randi Weingarten Appointed to DHS School Safety Advisory Council
American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten was appointed Monday to a new Department of Homeland Security school safety advisory council tasked with making recommendations on “emergency management,” “preparedness measures,” and “safety and security” in schools.
Weingarten rose to prominence during the Covid pandemic as one of the chief advocates of school closures. The AFT, the nation’s second-largest largest teachers’ union, pushed the CDC to delay opening schools well after most other developed nations has returned children to the classroom, emails obtained by Americans for Public Trust revealed.
In the fall of 2020, Weingarten denounced calls to reopen schools as “reckless, callous, cruel.” An AFT affiliate in Chicago similarly condemned then-Mayor Lori Lightfoot in 2022, who called her efforts to reopen school “rooted in sexism, racism, and misogyny.”
Prolonged school closures have, in part, hampered academic achievement rates, particularly among American kids and teens.
On Wednesday, the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), popularly known as the “Nation’s Report Card,” revealed that math scores for 13-year-olds hit a decades low. Reading scores of American teenagers have also witnessed a similar decline, dropping four points since the last assessment in 2020.
Representative Ben Cline (R., Va.) condemned the announcement. “Randi Weingarten chose appeasing teacher unions over getting students back in the classroom during the pandemic. Now, math and reading scores for the Nation’s 13-year-olds are at the worst decline in decades.”
“Why is DHS rewarding bad policy?” the Freedom Caucus member wroteon Twitter.
Senator Rick Scott (R., Fl.) similarly vented his frustration with the appointment. Weingarten “is the last person who should be advising anyone on school safety,” he wrote.
Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas announced Weingarten was among the 20 new members appointed to the 30-person council on Monday afternoon. “Leaders of our academic institutions and campus life have a great deal to offer in helping us counter the evolving and emerging threats to the homeland,” Mayorkas said in a statement.
“The Homeland Security Academic Partnership Council’s insights into strategic research, innovation, career development, and partnership opportunities for the Department will support our mission to safeguard the American people, and help our country think through and prepare for whatever threats lie ahead.”
Weingarten was brought before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic in late April, to address the union’s role in delaying the reopening of schools. House Republicans zeroed in on the AFT’s lack of qualification to be involved in public-health discussions with the CDC.
“Did your scientific experts present to you, as of June of 2020, among 1.8 million children in this age group, do you know how many died from Covid?” Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R., Iowa) asked the union boss.
“I don’t have that number in my head,” Weingarten replied, to which the Iowa representative answered her own question saying the number was “zero.”
The bold face comments are mine — no need for concern with Mayorkas at the helm.
Two things to beware: commenters who inject their national political preoccupations into discussions of local issues, and writers who don’t realize Randi Weingarten — president of America’s second-largest teachers’ union since 2008 — “rose to prominence” long before the pandemic.
DaveSchmidt said:
Two things to beware: commenters who inject their national political preoccupations into discussions of local issues, and writers who don’t realize Randi Weingarten — president of America’s second-largest teachers’ union since 2008 — “rose to prominence” long before the pandemic.
So, how is that relevant to who she is today?
And when are “national political preoccupations” and “discussions of local issues” unrelated?
Our old school board did too much in private, so we voted them out. Now our new board has decided to fire Principal Sanchez without any discussion. Six of them met and decided this. This is a travesty.