Mark Sattazahn, the former 108 teacher and author of the letter of resignation quoted by Mike Noyes in his Nov. 1 column, confronted the District 108 school board at their meeting Monday night. See my previous posts on this controversy here (mentions the Noyes column in passing, before I knew the letter was leaked & not volunteered), here (the initial reaction to the column), here (Noyes’s smug reply to his critics) and here (yet another letter critical of Noyes).
The Daily Times article quotes two of the letters to the editor regarding Noyes’s column, one critical and the other supportive. How fair & balanced, right? Well, the article fails to mention that there have been FIVE critical letters published in the Times, one of which was signed by about 20 District 108 staff members. There have been only two individually signed letters published in support of Noyes, and one of them was from someone living in a Chicago suburb. Extrapolating the ratio of what’s been published, opinion has been at least 12:1 against Noyes. The Times article makes it seem like it was evenly split.
The leak of the letter to Noyes was apparently not illegal because it is a public document and not protected by any sort of privacy law. Sattazahn, who was not approached by anyone from the Daily Times before the publication of the column, still questioned the ethics of the leak:
Just because an action is legal does not make it right.
Despite the breach of his privacy, Sattazahn told the board that he does not want the situation to discourage future 108 employees. That’s a nice thought, but the damage is done. Until the composition of the school board changes, district staff will obviously be hesitant to trust them.
James Drainer, the president of the Education Association of Pekin, also spoke to the board and criticized both the Daily Times and the person responsible for leaking the letter. All board members denied being the source of the leak when board president Richard Root polled them.
Don White stated that 4 administrators, 1 secretary and the 7 board members had access to the letter. Since Noyes and the Citizens for Pekin School Consolidation have been harshly critical of the District 108 administration and used the letter to further fuel that criticism, it is highly unlikely that any of the administrators were the source of the leak. That leaves the secretary and the 7 board members.
Dean Bacon is the only member of the 108 board that is also a member of the Citizens for Pekin School Consolidation.
Mike Noyes can deny that a board member was the source of the leak all he wants. His ethical standards are obviously questionable, so there’s no reason to believe that statement. I think I can figure out who was the most likely leak, and I’m sure the other good people of Pekin can too. Please remember it in the spring when school board elections come around.
5 responses so far ↓
1
Rick
// Nov 22, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Anyone following the controversy knows that there were far more letters against Mike Noyes published, so only a sampling was given. Also, to be fair to the Times, I know of NO OTHER local media outlet that publishes so much criticism about itself than the Times, let alone at the top of the front page. As editor, I get letters that say, “I doubt you will publish this but …” Those letters go to the top of the pile and I make sure they get in asap. Fair and balanced? As much as possible, you bet.
2
knightindragonland
// Nov 22, 2006 at 2:51 pm
In general, I would agree with you. In my short experience in Pekin, the Times has been a thorough, fair and balanced publication. I would say that the syndicated columns are slanted to the conservative, but hey … we’re in downstate IL. It’s a conservative place.
However, even a news addict such as myself doesn’t read the letters to the editor all the time … but I always read the front-page articles. Someone that hasn’t paid as much attention as you or I might not realize that the reaction to the Noyes column was heavily skewed to the negative. My objective was to make that fact blatantly obvious.
You could also point out the obvious that my posts are hardly fair & balanced. I came in as a neutral observer simply interested in gathering information because I have 4 children that are in or will be in Pekin public schools. I was QUICKLY turned off by the nasty, negative smear campaign against District 108 perpetrated by Mangan and assisted by Noyes. Bacon has remained the silent partner so far – I have yet to see anything written with just his name on it.
This whole consolidation issue is just a distraction from the real issues facing the children of Pekin. It’s a waste of time, effort & money. For what? MAYBE we save a few bucks – that’s not at all clear until a study is done (or multiple studies, as the case may be). It’s not worth it, especially with Mangan and his thugs leading the charge.
The unethical use of Sattazahn’s letter of resignation was the last straw for me. Mangan and Bacon should no longer represent Pekin public schools, and Mike Noyes should no longer be publishing in the Pekin Daily Times … or anywhere.
3
Rick
// Nov 24, 2006 at 10:46 am
I too believe that the controversy and conflict are taking much needed energy away from the real issue: Helping the kids who are not getting much out of their years spent in school, no matter what school district they are in. As I have written before, parents are the primary motivators of their own children. When I see kids across Pekin fighting in the streets, out way past the time they should be home doing homework or even in bed so they are fresh and alert for school in the morning, more concerned with vandalism and making babies than studying and paying attention in school, then I do not see how any educator can help them. What about year-round school? What about some kind of adult education to help those parents who are willing to help their children but might have had their own problems in school, so they can reinforce what their kids are learning in school? I compare the situation in Pekin to the U.S. political system since Watergate: It’s been tit for tat since then, with each party tearing down the president of the opposition party in revenge … and on and on, so America never heals. With people of good will on BOTH sides of the problem working together, instead of tearing each other down, perhaps we can achieve something. Until then, we will get nothing but what we have been getting so far: name calling and back stabbing.
4
knightindragonland
// Nov 24, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Is that a subtle hint that I should tone down my rhetoric? (chuckling)
I think you hit the nail on the head about the problems facing Pekin’s educational system … and District 150, as well. You’re right, there are a lot of kids out there that wouldn’t benefit from even the best school environment because their home environment does not encourage academics. Usually that’s because those parents came from families that didn’t value academics, ad infinitum back down the line. I think some of those families got by in the past because you could find a secure, good paying job without academic skills. That’s not true anymore. We’re entering the knowledge economy, and education is CRITICAL.
I think you pointed out some good solutions, too. Year-round school is probably a good idea – although often struggling kids end up in summer school anyway, so that’s pretty much happening already. Early childhood education is another part of the solution. Kids who receive an early introduction to the school environment are less likely to fall behind. Both of these solutions get kids away from a home environment that might be holding them back from academic achievement.
Parental education is a great idea, too. I think some of these parents want better for their kids, but they just don’t know how to provide it. Of course this is a delicate issue in the approach – it’s hard to tell someone they’re a bad parent without creating an atmosphere of angry confrontation.
The problem with these ideas … they take money to implement. Some of the weight could be carried by volunteers, but that’s not sustainable at the level necessary.
Mangan & Noyes advocate fiscal responsibility, and that’s certainly good policy and should be a goal of all governmental bodies. However, when carried to the extreme, it devolves into miserly penny-pinching that undermines the PRIMARY goal of Pekin’s schools – educating our kids.
I’m sure the Citizens for Pekin School Consolidation see themselves as staunch defenders of the taxpayer, but they’ve forgotten that education is the primary goal here. And the tactics … eck! I was talking with my family about this issue on Thanksgiving – my mom’s a retired teacher, and her father was a lifelong school administrator and superintendent in the Chicago area. CfPSC could have totally taken the opposite tact and tried to ally themselves with 108 teachers by emphasizing the fact that consolidation would bring salary parity between 303 & 108, raising 108 salaries. Instead they attack and slander 108 at every turn. What is Mangan’s beef? He really seems to have something personal against 108 & Don White in particular.
5
A Knight in Dragonland » Noyes Blows His Own Horn
// Mar 20, 2008 at 10:00 pm
[...] there’s also the fact that he does sleazy, despicable things like print his own interpretation of the private contents of a school teacher’s resignation letter to serve his political ends just before a referendum. Finally, there’s today’s column, [...]