PEORIA, IL -- The Peoria District 150 School Board on January 14 awarded Superintendent Sharon Desmoulin-Kherat a 10-year contract worth $1.3 million after public comments at the board meeting aired concerns about her leadership.
Here is the story in the Peoria Journal Star.
Here is a recording of the public comments.
Download PSD 150 Jan. 14
Criticism began with activist Sharon Crews, who has analyzed grades and graduation records from the high schools. Her report is posted below, and says that the totals don't add up. "How do students make up (failed) classes without summer school?" she asked.
Critic Terry Knapp wondered why swimming is no longer taught in P.E. classes when the high schools have swimming pools, some filled with water. "It makes no sense," he said.
Teacher Kim Thomas questioned what the administration has done to solve discipline problems. "We need an alternative school, K-12," she said.
Peoria Federation of Teachers head Jeff Atkins-Dutro questioned why student outcomes are "meager" even though everyone is working hard.
Critic Mary Beth Cunningham said 70 percent of the teachers recently voted thah the district is headed in the wrong direction."I've seen nepotism at its finest," she added, of district hiring.
Board members acknowledged the problems, and promised to look at them, including swimming lessons. "Discipline affects everything else,"said Ernestine Jackson."We've got to get a handle on that issue."
-- Elaine Hopkins
Here is the report from Sharon Crews:
Last Thursday I received a conference phone call from Tom Welch, Shannon Marlin, and Sharon Kherat. I believe the purpose of the call was to find out why I was questioning the use of the number 17 instead of a grade for students who were in a class until the end of the semester.
Both Marlin and Kherat seemed to insist that the only reason for a 17 was to indicate a transfer from one class to another or a withdrawal from the school. In other words, we have made no progress since my initial questioning of this issue on November 13, 2018.
Since then I have passed out considerable data that questions the use of the number 17. All responses to date have been less than informative. In this recent phone call, I detected that, especially Marlin and Kherat, were questioning the accuracy of the data I have compiled.
I stated that it doesn’t make sense to question my compilations since the information comes directly from the data I was given. I asked if they had copies of the data that I was given and if they had compared my compilations to their data. My hearing aids fail me at times, but I believe their answer was “No.”
Shouldn’t I have expected that comparison to be made before this phone call was made and long before January 10? At some point in the call they found the data for Peoria High. I directed them to the Peoria High data for 2nd semester for ID #84598 at the bottom of page 1—which presents a perfect example as to why I am questioning the data.
I have recently received another explanation for the use of the number 17, but I haven’t fully comprehended it yet. At one point I believe, Dr. Kherat assured me that the students whose grades were recorded as a 17 instead of a grade really did receive a grade.
Since I received no such data, am I supposed to be satisfied with this reassurance? I believe the main purpose of the phone call was probably to respond to Dr. Bob’s request at the last board meeting to provide me with an answer to my questions. I trust you will allow me now to present the public comments that I prepared for tonight to explain the new data I have given you and to be sure you understand my questions about the data.
Earlier, Dr. Kherat emailed this explanation for the use of the number 17 instead of a grade: “Once a student is assigned to a particular course and attends one day, the student will show in a teacher’s gradebook for that course. If the student transfers to a different section of the course or changes to a different course, the student will show in the teacher’s gradebook, but will be grayed out from the day the student transfers and an asterisk automatically fills in for the rest of the semester. At the end of the semester, all students who started in a particular teacher’s class will show as a 'W' on state reporting. A 'W' does not hurt the school or the student, as it just shows that there was a change in the student’s schedule and no grade was obtained.”
Looking at my handout, you will see that the data in blue is what Kherat explained. I didn’t use this transfer data in my compilations because it is irrelevant—tonight I am using examples including this data. Kherat’s explanation completely ignores the relevant data in Line 2. Note that in the first example a Manual student enrolled in AP English Language on 8/16/17 and transferred on 8/29/17 to the same course (a different hour or teacher) on 8/30/17 and finished the course on 12/21/17—I believe the grade should be an F (or maybe an A, B, C, or D), not a 17 for withdrawal—the last day of a semester is hopefully too late for withdrawals—and hopefully there is a policy.
Kherat’s earlier explanation also stated that “a “W” does not hurt the school or the student as it just shows that there was a change to the student’s schedule.” However, 'Ws' at the end of the semester do hurt the school and the student; they just don’t hurt the GPA. All those required English classes must be made up—256 F’s at Manual and 451 at Peoria High and 208 'Ws' at Manual and 332 at Peoria High. (That data was on previous handouts). I have never heard a satisfactory explanation as to how students make up all these courses without summer school. Changes to the curriculum will not help the students who have failed required courses in the past and probably not in the future either.
I recently realized that I had received all of Peoria High’s first semester 2017-18 grades in response to my January 17, 2018, FOIA request. Thus, I was able to see that the January data about Peoria High’s 1st semester English grades was significantly different from the data that I received in response to my August 22, 2018, request for the same data.
First, the grades from the January data were the usual As, Bs, Cs, Ds, and F’s, but the August data listed grades as 2, 5, 8, 11, 13, and 17, evidently, to meet state requirements. Why weren’t the January grades coded with these numbers? When and by whom were the teacher grades changed to this state mandated code? Were all grades at all schools changed? When and by whom were the 17’s added—certainly not by teachers?
Pages 2-12 of my handout show how the January Peoria High English IV grades differ from the August grades. All I could do is count the number of A’s, B’s, etc., since the fake ID’s for the January and August data weren’t the same.-30-