This is an example of why the Regents should take the time to notify the community of their intentions, initiate a true dialog with residents in the area (and faculty and staff) and provide clear agendas with specific objectives. Something like this would have been avoided if others knowledgeable about contract issues had seen the proposal beforehand.

Sadly, the meeting will not be held in the Silver City-Grant County area – the Regents are meeting in Rio Rancho. IF you can manage to swing by the WNMU Administration building, and IF you can do that at the exact time of the meeting, and IF there’s enough room for you to sit in the ridiculously small Serna Conference Room, you can attend the meeting by phone. If not, you’ll have to hope a local reporter can make it to the meeting and report on it for you – they didn’t bother to implement any of my earlier suggestions.

Oh, and it looks like Regent President Tony Trujillo is still upset about the situation, and won’t attend the meeting. He questioned whether the original vote was legal (!) and said he thought the other regents may have discussed the vote before the Dec. 12 meeting.

I’ll have more on this when I hear about it.

Then, in 2006 (IIRC), they upped the salary again, extended the contract further, and even included a retention bonus.

Rinse, repeat, in 2008.

Faculty are likely upset, but that’s not even the most egregious part of the story.  The real news is that Board of Regents President Tony Trujillo was unaware that the contract extension would be on the agenda until the day of the vote:

“The first time I saw the agenda item under New Business … was this morning at the work session,” Trujillo said on Friday. “The item was not on the agenda we discussed a week ago.”
Trujillo said he had met with Counts a week earlier, on Friday, Dec. 5, to discuss the agenda before it was released, as per the Board of Regents’ handbook.
“I can’t participate in being railroaded into an agenda item I didn’t know about,” Trujillo said. “I’m not going to participate in a public forum where I have issues.”

Now, WNMU is going to say it violated no laws about public meetings and that it posted an amended agenda at the proper times, but you know what? If the board president doesn’t know in advance, how is the public supposed to know?

Time and again, the WNMU Board of Regents has stifled public comment, obfuscated when possible, and violated the public trust. Staff of the school (whom also serve the Board when it is in session) work diligently to ensure that state and federal open meetings and open records acts are followed to the letter of the law, but not the spirit. Holding quarterly meetings in Santa Fe, cramming work sessions into the tight conference room in the administration building, and limiting public input time during meetings are just a few of the measures that, when viewed together, seem to indicate an aversion to public dialogue and openness.

I haven’t really been around for the past two years, but reading stories like the one in today’s Daily Press sure doesn’t lead me to think that the school, its leaders, or staff have taken steps to involve the community or be more transparent. So, here are a few tips (specifically for Regents-related issues):

1. Agendas should be published early and online, and include meeting materials (reports or presentations).
   • For something like the president’s contract exentsion, this should include information on salary ranges for comparable institutions within in the state and region. Faculty should have been consulted, and the results of any feedback they generate should be provided to Regents and the public. In addition, there should be a detailed plan in place to begin a search for a successor, and that should be an action item as well.
   • Other materials, like reports on asset disposal, tuition increases, etc., should also be prepared in advance and made available to the public in an electronic format.
2. Then, encourage interested parties to provide advance feedback electronically (via e-mail) or in the form of a written letter. Give this feedback to the Regents during the work session. That way, a dialogue can exist that isn’t limited to 15 minutes at the end of a 2-hour meeting.
3. WNMU constantly highlights its distance-learning initiatives – why not stream board meetings online so people can watch from across the state? It’s cheap and WNMU already has the tech (or should). That way, even if Regents have to meet in a small room or in Santa Fe (or elsewhere), interested parties and the public can see what’s happening.
4. Audio recordings of board meetings and work sessions should be posted online in MP3 or similar format, so members of the community can review what happened.

These are all really, really easy to do, and would go a long way toward engaging the comunity in the University’s affairs in a positive and constructive way. But, I have a feeling it will be business as usual – like it’s been since 1993.

Richardson promises he will get rid of No Child Left Behind, create a minimum wage for teachers, make pre-k and kindergarten available to all children and create math and science academies throughout the United States.

The ad appears to be tied with a new website outlining Richardson’s planned education initiatives.

After the debate, leading education blogger Alexander Russo reported that a Santa Fe New Mexican reporter emailed him to say Richardson’s claims were somewhat overblown: The minimum salary for New Mexico public school teachers isn’t $40,000 but $30,000, with a three-tiered evaluation system for salary increases based on performance. New Mexico is one of only a few states to experiment with merit pay for teachers, a move traditionally opposed by powerful teacher’s unions. Indeed, linking teacher pay to metrics like student scores on standardized tests could penalize the professionals willing to take on the toughest assignments teaching the most underprivileged children.

But while tying teacher pay to performance is controversial, it’s understood that the tenure system gives too many bad teachers a free pass. So compromises in which unions win higher starting salaries and benefits like housing vouchers (many teachers can’t afford to live in the communities in which they work) in exchange for administrators having the power to remove the worst teachers from the classroom, regardless of tenure status, amount to a move in the right direction.

Richardson’s sense of urgency on education reform should be applauded. Perhaps it’s because as a governor, he’s one of the few candidates in the Democratic field with hands-on experience crafting education policy.

There’s lots more, so check it out. Also, check out Heath’s speculation that Richardson may be moving up to the big leagues anyway, so this “second-tier” talk might be a thing of the past.

The question is whether NCLB’s requirement of 100% proficiency by 2014 is achievable, and the answer, as almost everyone in the article acknowledges, is no. 100% isn’t achievable for anything. Everyone knows that.
[...]
Question: Why would NCLB mandate an obviously unmeetable standard? And now that it’s up for renewal, why would Republicans continue to insist on that obviously unmeetable standard?

Answer: Because the 100% goal isn’t just rhetorical. It comes with penalties. If you don’t meet the standard, you lose money, you’re officially deemed a “failing school,” and your students are eligible to transfer to other schools. And needless to say, by 2014 there won’t be any satisfactory public schools to send them to because 99% of them won’t have met the standard.

Followup bonus question: What incentive does anyone have to label 99% of America’s public schools as failures? That’s crazy, isn’t it?

Answer: Anyone who wants the public to believe that public schools are failures. This would primarily consist of conservatives who want to break teachers unions and evangelicals who want to build political momentum for private school vouchers. The whole point of NCLB for these people is to make sure that as many public schools as possible are officially deemed failures.

Many New Mexico students start out life behind, enter schools that aren’t well-prepared to help them and receive little support in moving from education to a career, a report said Wednesday.

Education Week, in its Quality Counts 2007 report, ranked New Mexico last in the nation on a new Chance for Success index, which rated all 50 states on how well they give their young people an opportunity to succeed later in life.

Quality Counts ranked New Mexico 47th in academic performance of elementary and secondary students and 39th in aligning education from early childhood programs to a career.

New Mexico falls below the national average in preschool enrollment; high school graduation rates; reading and math proficiency; enrollment in post-secondary education; family income; and the percentage of parents who work full time, have a degree and speak English fluently.

“Other states are able to pull themselves out of a tailspin through a stronger educational system and opportunities later on” but those aren’t seen in New Mexico, said project director Chris Swanson.

Bad news, right? Well, let’s keep reading:

[NM Education Secretary Veronica Garcia] cited steps toward more pre-kindergarten; implementation of full-day kindergarten; efforts to make the system seamless from pre-kindergarten through college; improved access to technology, particularly by children in poor areas; and improved nutrition by getting junk food out of schools.

She also cited New Mexico’s economy: 10th in the nation for economic growth, 9th for personal income growth; the 11th-highest job growth; and a November unemployment rate of 4.3 percent.

In the past, Education Week graded states on academic achievement and standards in elementary and secondary schools. Last year, New Mexico scored a B on the education trade journal’s overall report card and an A for standards and accountability.

Garcia is likely correct, even if she is spinning. The latest report tears into New Mexico for pre-school enrollment, among other things. The state has been working for the last few years on improving that, and full-day kindergarten will help kids who didn’t attend pre-school. Still, the state has a long way to go toward a true P-16 (pre-kindergarten through college) education system, an approach adopted by many other states but only recently here in New Mexico. This report confirms that.

Hat tip to Headwaters News.

I don’t know that Bill Richardson will be attending the forum, but that means we’ll be treated to a visit by Lt. Gov. Diane Denish. It’s always refreshing when Diane comes to town, and I imagine we’ll be seeing more of her as the big guy really hits the campaign trail.

You can find an agenda here, if you’re interested in attending any of the meetings or forums.

I’ll likely try to live-blog some of the meetings I attend, or, at the least, will try and post some updates throughout the day. So, stay tuned if you can.

Today’s will likely be the last post for the next few days, because some interesting developments have occurred.

This morning, the opinion and news editor positions were reposted on the campus jobs site, though I couldn’t find the posting for the news editor job. In addition, the arts and design editor positions are being “held open,” whatever that means.

In addition, George Barton, director of campus placement services, told Jacqueline Armendariz and Carlos Mariscal on Monday that they had not followed the proper appeals process when they contacted Student Placement Services.

Armendariz told me she filed a grievance on July 28. Per the Student Employment Services Handbook (Section XX, Grievance Procedures), a grievance review officer should have contacted Armendariz within five days. After conducting an investigation, the review officer should have made a recommendation to the affected parties (the employee and the employer).

According to Armendariz, she and Mariscal contacted Barton directly when nobody responded to the grievance process. Armendariz spoke with Barton on August 3, when she said she was told no further investigation would be conducted into her and Mariscal’s individual cases. Armendariz said she was under the impression this constituted a recommendation from Barton, as outlined in the grievance process in the SES Handbook. She filed a refusal of the recommendation on August 3 (as required by the handbook).

From what I understand, she (and Mariscal) followed the grievance procedure to the letter. Nonetheless, Barton told them they had not followed the proper procedure, and had to appeal “internally.” Both Armendariz and Mariscal received an e-mail message from Barton explaining his reasoning. In the letter sent to Armendariz, Barton says:

I have received your recent letter concerning your plans to pursue the grievance procedure as it pertains to hiring for Round Up positions. It is important for you to understand that you have not yet taken this process through the appropriate steps and are not yet in a position to request a hearing by this office or a Student Personnel Board. I have done nothing more than review your complaint and attempt to discuss it with Mr. Morris. I have served as an advisor only. It has been my hope that the problem could be resolved without taking it into a very messy appeal process. You seem to have been very anxious to push this process to a formal appeal even before decisions have been made and before you have received any written response from me.

Since I was unsuccessful in bringing this situation to a resolution that is satisfactory to all parties, it appears that you will need to pursue it more formally. The next step in the process is for you to appeal internally; this means that you will need to go before the Pub Board. I will not be involved at this stage, but will offer technical advice where it is requested. In the meantime, the posting for the Arts Editor position is being held open until a resolution has been reached.

Feel free to contact me if you have questions about the appeal process. I would suggest you refer to the SES Handbook. You will find that our goal is to resolve problems internally whenever possible. Your first line of appeal is the (Publications) Board.

George Barton, Ed.D.
Placement and Career Services
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM 88003

The wording is slightly different in the letter addressed to Mariscal, but you get the point. Armendariz (and Mariscal) appear, to me, to have not only initiated the grievance process, but they’re in the middle of it. But Barton doesn’t see things that way, and is now asking them to “appeal internally,” a process that is not defined in the SES Handbook.

So, rather than subject themselves and The Round Up to the clearly outlined grievance process, Barton wants Armendariz and Mariscal to follow an internal appeal process, the nuances of which are undefined and unclear.

No date for a Publications Board meeting has been set.

Imagine you’re about to put a chunk of your life savings into a mutual fund. Now imagine you peruse the various “best mutual fund” guides on the news rack, only to find they’re all missing crucial pieces of information. The guides list where the fund managers went to college, how much investment capital they’ve attracted, and what kind of “experience” investors had at the annual fund meeting. But they don’t tell you what you most want to know: What the funds’ rates of return have been–or if they’ve ever made a dime for anyone. You might still decide to invest in a mutual fund, but it would be a heck of a crapshoot. And with their scorecard hidden, fund managers wouldn’t be under much pressure to perform, let alone improve.

That imaginary mutual-fund market pretty much shows how America’s higher-education market works. Each year prospective college students and their parents pore over glossy brochures and phone-book-sized college guides in order to decide how to invest their hard-earned tuition money–not to mention four years of their lives. Some guides, like the popular rankings published by U.S. News & World Report, base ratings on factors like alumni giving, faculty salaries, and freshman SAT scores. Others identify the top “party schools,” most beautiful campuses, and most palatial dorms.

But what’s missing from all the rankings is the equivalent of a bottom line. There are no widely available measures of how much learning occurs inside the classroom, or of how much students benefit from their education.

The article, Is Our Students Learning?, appears alongside the Monthly’s annual college rankings. WaMo doesn’t rank colleges in the traditional manner — instead, the rag looks at other factors:

And so, to put The Washington Monthly College Rankings together, we started with a different assumption about what constitutes the “best” schools. We asked ourselves: What are reasonable indicators of how much a school is benefiting the country? We came up with three: how well it performs as an engine of social mobility (ideally helping the poor to get rich rather than the very rich to get very, very rich), how well it does in fostering scientific and humanistic research, and how well it promotes an ethic of service to country.

Indeed, the thrust of my argument regarding campus newspapers is that experience is to be supported and encouraged. While WNMU might hire some shmuck off the street to be student editor (me), NMSU actually has a pool of not only qualified, but experienced journalists from which to choose.

Thus begins the second part of our series on the Round Up. Remember Jacqueline Armendariz, our enterprising intern at the Silver City Daily Press? This summer, she’s covered a murder investigation, wrote a breaking news story on flooding in Santa Clara, and has pursued the more mundane, day-to-day stories of a small-town daily with enthusiasm.

Will she be working at the Round Up again next semester? Apparently not. She applied for the news editor position, which she didn’t receive. She won’t be going back as a news reporter, and, after she was turned down for an arts editor job, the position was reposted because of a “lack of qualified candidates.”

Jackie is one of the brightest young reporters I’ve met — she keeps me honest here at the office, always asks tough questions, and has a keen insight into the news gathering process.

Another casualty of the hiring process is Carlos Mariscal, the design editor for the Round Up for the Spring 2006 semester. Mariscal is currently an intern (page design and layout) for the Clovis News-Journal. He applied for the same position for the Fall 06 semester, and waited 29 days from the time he was interviewed to the time Morris informed him he did not get the position. As in Armendariz’s case, the position was reposted afterward. According to the NMSU Student Employment Services Handbook (Section X, “Posting”):

Additional applicants should not be solicited until it has been determined that a sufficient number of qualified applicants is not available in the initial pool.

Why repost the position, when (as in Armendariz’s case) qualified applicants for the job were interviewed? Mariscal even held the position!

That brings us to handbook section XIX, “Termination,” which states:

Student employees may terminate for a number of reasons. However, there are five broad categories under which the student employee’s termination will fall:

A. End of Employment Period – All student employees are automatically terminated as of the job end date specified in Ventana at the time of hire. It should be noted, however, that an incumbent has the right to continue working if the position has not been dissolved.

(italics mine)

What happened to Mariscal here? He was the incumbent, and the position was not dissolved. Am I missing something here?

More thoughts after the weekend — as the saga that is the Round Up continues.