Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Why Is PUSD Board of Education Member Scott Phelps Denouncing "Collaborate PASadena?"

Elitist Spendthrifts?

I have always admired Pasadena Unified School Board member Scott Phelps. Not because I always agree with him, or even understand what it is he is going on about sometimes. He can be a little obscure once in a while. But that is hardly a problem for me. At least Phelps cares about something more than mere self-aggrandizement or personal wealth creation, and in these troubled times that is a good thing. The guy is a truth-teller in a place where that can be an exception, and certainly his longstanding dedication to the needs of PUSD's kids cannot be easily questioned.

Which is why Scott's denunciation of something called "Collaborate PASadena" has to be viewed with some interest, and concern. In an exhaustive Pasadena Star News op-ed piece called "Blame for Pasadena Unified’s woes is on those who’ve left" (link here), Phelps makes the following potentially damning observations:

Board Member Scott Phelps
On the larger, long-term topic of the current prospects and climate for success for any superintendent in PUSD, we should be very concerned. The once-promising city-school work plan has been taken over by nonprofits that changed its name to Collaborate Pasadena

Colloborate Pasadena now has expensive staff, something it was not intended to have. It is funded equally by the city of Pasadena and the PUSD. The criticism of the district by these nonprofits and the powerful circle of activists who express the desire to help the less fortunate, but who send their own children to private schools, is on full display.

The last two joint meetings between the City Council and the school board have shown that there really isn’t any collaboration going on or concern for the district involved, but rather the public airing of false allegations and statements about the PUSD without checking with PUSD staff.

Of course, PUSD supporters know full well that many nonprofits and most private school parents have a fundamental conflict of interest involved in their assessment of the district. If the situation is not made to seem worse than it is, and the nonprofits aren’t made to be the saviors, then they don’t receive as much funding. If the schools aren’t portrayed as sufficiently bad, there would be no reason to spend the large sums of money on private schools. No reasons they would admit to publicly. 

So what is "Collaborate PASadena?" Here is how they are described on the City of Pasadena website (link).

Collaborate PASadena is a framework for the Pasadena Unified School District, the City of Pasadena, the unincorporated community of Altadena and the City of Sierra Madre to work together to build a commitment toward a shared vision to create better outcomes for children, youth, families and all residents. First jointly approved by the Pasadena Unified School District Board of Education and Pasadena City Council in February 2013, Collaborate PASadena is also a planning process intentionally designed to build more trusting relationships and a way to align resources to more effectively deliver services to better serve children, youth and families.

Then there is this from the Collaborate PASadena website itself (link):

What is Collaborate PASadenaCollaborate PASadena is an initiative, based on Collective Impact research, that:​
- Develops and nurtures new community partnerships
- Establishes better working relationships
- Improves communication between all partners and stakeholders
- Shares accountability for results
- Supports the alignment of resources
- Allows for meaningful participation of diverse stakeholders

So what is the truth here? Is Collaborate PASadena what it claims to be, a kind of selfless do-gooder organization completely dedicated to the success of the PUSD and its students? Or is it the expensive, over-staffed and self-serving impediment to public education Board of Ed member Scott Phelps describes above?

Apparently the taxpayers are paying a lot of money for this mishegoss. Perhaps it is time for Sierra Madre, and especially the Collaborate PASadena city council representative, John Capoccia, to take a long hard look.

sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

27 comments:

  1. 21 years ago i tried out PUSD for my daughter. She went to a neighborhood schhol and did well. By middle school i put her into private school. When my son started school 12 years ago he went straight into private school. For high school we moved to another city and he has had a great public school education.

    Pasadena just doesn't get it right... And i went to PUSD back when it was decent...and i was heavily involved when my daughter went.

    I just don't get it...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Phelps is right. PUSD had "do as I say, not as I do" leadership.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn't Phelps part of the "leadership"?

      Delete
  3. Collaborate PASadena has become yet another tax payer funded bureaucracy. One that was supposed to become a cure for the problems created by bureaucracy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. DONALD TRUMP IMPEACHMENT: MICHAEL FLYNN FLIPPED ON TRUMP, WORKING WITH FBI
    http://www.inquisitr.com/4090747/donald-trump-impeachment-michael-flynn-flipped-on-trump-working-with-fbi/

    ReplyDelete
  5. 7:44am. You took my words from right out of my mouth, Thank you.
    Reading the Collaborate Community research statement, sounds like what SCAG presented to city councils.
    Does this Collaborate PASadena organization receive a huge tax break?
    Typical of bureaucracy coming from PUSD.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Collective Impact Research." Yep. Sounds like SCAG to me.

      Delete
  6. If you want to improve PUSD you need to hand pick the students and force the parents to have more participation. Also, if your on the board your kid should be going to PUSD. That would be a good start anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  7. How much money did the Hollywood Elites pour into the Georgia election?
    Referendum for President Donald J. Trump. Republican Strong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In a heavily Republican district the GOP's margin of victory dropped frpm over 20% to just under 4%. Strong? Wrong.

      Delete
    2. You tell us, you're the one who's so obsessed with them...

      I didn't realize Hollywood was in Georgia

      Delete
    3. Hollywood is the capital of the American entertainment industry, which is the envy of the world. Putinistas hate it.

      Delete
    4. A win is a win quit crying. Democratic leaders in the House are taking heat after the party's disappointing special-election defeat in Georgia.


      Some lawmakers were quick to blame their leadership for Jon Ossoff's defeat to Republican Karen Handel, saying the party failed to learn the 2016 lesson that running against President Trump without a positive message of your own is not enough to win elections.

      Delete
  8. 10:36am. Voters don't appear to be entertained by the politics of fading movie stars or the Clinton dynasty, your right. Even the "Russians" hate it.
    Where are those pesky Russians, speaking of entertainment.
    Maybe the Russians make up the Collaborate PASadena, nient; they are too smart for that!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The election was rigged! Trump said so

      Delete
  9. A middle aged Canadian, crossed the border into the U.S., attempted murder of a police officer ... build the wall.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If you’re looking for a place to have a good time, a new study suggests that you should think twice before heading to Georgia. The Peach State has been named one of the least fun states in America by WalletHub.

    Georgia came in at No. 40 overall, while Nevada and South Dakota took first and second place, respectively.

    The state’s few country clubs, movie theaters, national parks and other recreational establishments per capita helped it fall to the bottom of the pack. Nevada and South Dakota dominated in most of those areas, placing in the top five.

    Arkansas came in at No. 46, Alabama, No. 48 and Mississippi, No. 50.

    Republican Yawn


    ReplyDelete
  11. Hey, according to article's here and a few bloggers that respond; the guys with illegal guns are PD. Why then, was a guy just stopped at the Sierra Madre Metro Station with a AK-47, a hand gun, knife, Bible and a notebook written in a foreign language? First he was just stopped for urinating in a planter, but then the PD must have suspected that he was not one of their own.
    Anyway FYI, sometimes the "other guys" have off roster guns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good thing I sleep with five guns in pajamas and have a cannon hiding in my planter

      Delete
    2. A cannon is hidden in your what?

      Delete
  12. Affordable housing and clean country living in Georgia, Arkansas, Alabama, Missippi; what am I missing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reason why so many people from those places leave for California.

      Delete
    2. Unhealthiest part of the country, 5:30.

      Delete
    3. Home of the one tooth wonder.

      Delete
    4. According to the EPA, Georgia’s Scherer coal-fired power plant near Macon is the number one producer of greenhouse gases in the United States, emitting 22.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide alone in 2010.

      Georgia is also home to the second worst polluter in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, with its Bowen Plant in Cartersville, which boasted total greenhouse gas emissions of 21,026,397 in 2010. This plant was also listed as the largest emitter of sulfur dioxide in 2006 and blamed for a variety of health issues, from asthma, bronchitis and heart disease to lung disease and pneumonia. Plans are reportedly under way for the installation of scrubbers on the plant’s four cooling towers to remove sulfur dioxide from exhaust before it is released into the air.

      Sweet dreams, idiot.

      Delete
  13. A win is a win 3:52? A 16% point drop in a Republican dominated district may well portend huge losses in 2018. Stay tuned.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I know four of the people in the photo. Scott is dead on in this case

    ReplyDelete