BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO
LAW DEPARTMENT - RONALD L. MARMER, GENERAL COUNSEL
Attorney-Client Privileged Work Product Document

     

Date: November 2, 2017

 

 

To: Ronald L. Marmer, General Counsel
cc: Douglas I-Ienning, First Deputy General Counsel

From: James G. Ciesil, Deputy General Counsel
Cc: Anna Slater, Senior Assistant General Counsel

Re: Law Department Review and Analysis of the OIG Investigation Regarding
Consuella B. York Alternative High School (OIG Report No. 16-0027?1

Executive Summary

 

On june 30, 2017, the Office of the Inspector General issued a report
concerning Consuella B. York Alternative High School, a Chicago Public School that
exists within the Cook County Department of Corrections The OIG concluded
the following: Under Principal Sharnette Sims? leadership, York engaged in a practice
of reporting false enrollment data and student attendance data (See, OIG Report, pp.
(13) Under Principal Sirns? leadership, York awarded credits to students that were
unearned (OIG Report at 1?2; Principal Sims and her administration pressured
teachers to issue credits to students that were unearned (OIG Report at As a
result of these improper and fraudulent practices, Principal Sims artificially inflated
York?s School Quality Rating Policy and impacted York?s funding (OIG Report at 4 and
44); The course structure implemented by Principal Sims at York is flawed and
dishonest (OIG Report at Principal Sims and her administration pressure teachers
to not report safety issues (OIG Report at and Principal Sims allowed numerous
students 22 years?old or older to improperly enroll at York (OIG Report at 3). Based upon
those findings, the OIG recommended ?that the Board terminate Principal Sirns?s
employment. (OIG Report at 5).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Upon receiving the OIG Report, the Board?s Law Department reviewed it and

presented it to the Board?s Discipline Committee on July 31, 2017. The Discipline
Committee expressed concerns about the OIG Report. The key concerns were as followsClear errors existed in the OIG Report. The OIG found that York?s ?falsi?ed data
artificially in?ated York?s SQRP Scores and York?s Funding" (OIG Report, p. 44).
However, York does not receive SQRP scores and it is not subject to SBB funding.

The OIG misapplied the Board?s High School Promotion Policy, Board Report No.
The concluded that students must have 3,600 minutes of
instruction or else they cannot earn credits (OIG Report, p. 43). This finding is

wrong. A student may not earn a credit when a student has 20% or more

unexcused absences. Additionally, under the Board Policy, performance on
academic assignments is more important than attendance.

The OIG opined about the educational rigor of instruction given to York students,
the length of cycles and the holding of multiple courses during the same class 
Report, pp. 4?5, 12, 32, 4344). The has no expertise on educational issues.
Additionally, the 016 did not interview any educational experts to determine
whether the York educational structure was ?awed.

The DIG did not interview anyone from DOC. Additionally, there is no indication
in its report that any 01G investigator ever visited York.

The 016 did not interview any of Dr. Siins? supervisors. Thusknowing whether Dr. Sims was solely responsible for all the perceived
educational and data errors at York or whether her decisions were known and
approved by her supervisors (OIG Report, 

The OIG did not interview any of York?s assistant principals or lead teachers.

The OIG interviewed only a handful of current York teachers. Notably, most of
the teachers interviewed by the OIG had been disciplined by Dr. Sims or had
engaged in some other action that tends to show bias. Additionally, the GIG
investigation relied upon anecdotal hearsay statements by former York teachers.

Of particular concern was the fact that nearly all the teachers interviewed by the
016 were White, even though 70% of the teaching force is African American, 10%
Hispanic and 3% Asian (See Teachers interviewed on pages 19, 20 and 21 below).

 

ZIPage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wa.7'1' .

9) The 016 conducted a last?minute data dump of DOC and Board data involving
York student enrollment, attendance and credit information. Such last minute
merging of data with little time for review led to errors in the OIG data and
analysis. This last?minute analysis is perplexing because the began its
investigation on February 28, 2016, more than 16 months before issuing its Report.

(See Law Department Review (LDR) at 18?20).

Dr. Sharnette Sims is a contract principal whose current contract runs from July 1,
2016 through June 30, 2020. Pursuant to Section 34-85 of the Illinois School Code, 105
ILCS 5/ 34?85, Dr. Sims possesses legally protected rights to her position. Thus, Dr. Sims
is entitled to an State Board of Education administrative hearing before an
independent hearing officer. To dismiss Dr. Sims, the Board would be obligated to prove
before an ISBE hearing of?cer that Dr. Sims engaged in irrernediable misconduct that
constituted a material breach of her principal contract.

This author is the Deputy General Counsel in charge of the Law Department?s
Labor and Employee Discipline Unit. Knowing the high standard needed to dismiss a
contract principal and the apparent weaknesses and errors in the 016 Report, this author
undertook a detailed review of the Report to determine whether it could justify Dr.

Sims? termination. This review consisted of the following:

1) An eDiscovery examination of emails from Dr. Sims, York?s two assistant
principals and York?s five lead teachers from July 2012 to the present;

2) Visiting York on three days to interview: two assistant principals; five lead
teachers; two clerks; and 26 teachers, counselors and case managers;

3) Interviewing 12 educational and policy experts that had background knowledge
of Dr. Sims and York;

4) Interviewing 11 technical experts with knowledge of IMPACT and SIM for York;
5) Meeting with six DOC representatives;
6) Reviewing hundreds of pages of materials obtained by the 

7) Reviewing thousands of data entries made by DOC and York that were made part
of the 016 Report; and 

8) Gathering hundreds of pages of materials from York, educational experts and
technical experts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(See LDR Report, pp. 1?41; Summary of Interviews, pp. 1-86; Excel Spreadsheet analyzing
44 student attendance data, pp. 1-31; and Analysis of OIG Case Activity Reports and
Attachments, pp. 1?12).

Based upon this author's independentreview of the 016 Report and additional
information obtained, this author concludes that the OIG Report contains serious errors,
omissions and an exaggeration of key factual conclusions. The key deficiencies are as
follows:

A. Dr. Sims" changes to York?s educational structure were known and approved by
the York ALSC and teaching staff. Additionally, Dr. Sims? supervisors approved
the changes to York?s educational structure (LDR Report at 4?6, 23-25).

B. Dr. Sims? double-block cycle?schedule with blended courses in a class was
reviewed by six CPS educational experts. Their determination was that it is sound
and that the education presented to York students complies with State and Federal
guidelines (LDR Report at 23?28). 

C. York is not subject to SQRP scores and its funding is not impacted by student
attendance data or enrollment data. Therefore, there is no incentive for Dr. Sims
or her staff to falsify this information (LDR Report at 

D. Central Of?ce personnel knew of York?s data challenges and were aware that
IMPACT and SIM data from York had technical limitations (LDR Report at 17?18).

E. The conclusion that York is educationally flawed is largely based upon its

interviews of 11 past and present York teachers. Of those 11 teachers, ten (10) were

critical of York and Dr. Sims. Of those ten (10) teachers only one (1) teacher has

not previously been disciplined by Dr. Sims or been denied a requested position

by Dr. Sims. Therefore, they had a reason to exaggerate or manufacture their
claims (LDR Report at 20?22).

F. There is a racial element to the 016?s investigation. Of the 11 teachers interviewed
by the OIG, ten (10) were critical of York and Dr. Sims. Of those ten (10) teachers,
eight (8) are White, one (1) is Asian and one (1) is African American. Although
70% of York?s teaching staff is African American the interviewed only two (2)
African American teachers. And only one (1) African American teacher was
critical of Dr. Sims (LDR Report at 22).

 

?ll-Rage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

G. The OIG found that York?s student enrollment data and attendance data are false
and show a broad system of falsi?ed data. The OlG?s finding is misplaced and
lacks rigor. A review of the OIG data revealed the following:

1. The OIG found that York falsified data on two (2) students who, in
fact, were never enrolled at York. Although the 016 concluded that
82 student attendance days were falsi?ed, the OIG based its findings
on the wrong persons.

2. The found that York falsi?ed data on two (2) students who left
York but the 01G neglected to see that those two students had been
re?incarcerated by DOC and re-enrolled at York. Although the OTC
concluded that 57 student attendance days were falsi?ed, the 
findings" failed to account for the fact that the students were re?
booked by DOC and re?enrolled at York.

3. The 016 found that York falsi?ed data on seven (7) students, but
York clerks marked those students ?present? in IMPACT so that they
could enter their final grades. The OIG concluded that 65 student
attendance days were falsified when, in fact, the York clerks merely
marked the students ?present? to enter their final grades.

4. The found that York falsi?ed data on one (1) student, but the
York clerks marked the student ?present? in IMPACT so that they
could accomplish the administrative task to allow the student to
graduate from York.

5. The found that York falsified data on two (2) students who were
taking classes on?line. The GIG ignored that York offers on-line
courses both on and off-campus. It is difficult, therefore, to know
whether the students were participating off-campus.

6. Of the 44 students identified by the 14 of them did not receive
any credit during the time identified as falsi?ed. In fact, York clerks
marked as ?deleted? many of these student attendance entries to
note a correction. Thus, the OIG found more than 100 student
attendance falsification on students that never received credit.

More than 60% of the data presented by the OIG as falsi?ed was clearly not
falsi?ed. The OlG?s own errors affecting more than 60% of the OlG?s data 
confirm how easily data errors occur (LDR Report at 30?32,; Excel Spreadsheet
analyzing 44 student attendance data, pp. 1-31).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H. The Found that Dr. Sims and her administration threatened teachers to give
credit to students. The weight of the evidence does not support the OlG?s
conclusion (LDR Report at 33-36). .

l. Contrary to the 018?s finding, the vast majority of teachers have never been
?pressured? to issue a credit to a student (LDR Report at 37?39).

I. The OlG?s ?nding that the York Administration encouraged teachers to under?

report safety issues is not supported by the weight of the evidence (LDR Report at
39?40). I

K. The finding that 52 students were iinprOperly enrolled at York since they
were 22 years old or older. A review of the OIG data shows that only 11 of the 52
students were first enrolled after their 22nd birthday. Since the OlG?s data does
not show whether those students had IEPS, which would have allowed them to be
enrolled when they are 22 years old, it is unclear whether the data supports the
conclusion (LDR Report at 40).

The 016 Report contains information that is confidential, including student
information protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20
U.S.C. 12.32g, and the Illinois School Students Records Act (ISSRA), 105 TLCS 10/ 1 et seq.
The Report also contains references to information that is protected by the Illinois
Personnel Record Review Act, 820 ILCS 40/1 et seq. It appears from press reports that
unauthorized persons may have received confidential information. To provide a specific
analysis of the 016?s Report, this author has included confidential information
concerning student records and employment records in the LDR. ri?iccordinglvE this
author cautions that only persons who have a legally permissible basis for seeing such
information may review the LDR without redactions. Other persons may have a
legitimate reason to review the LDR but may not have a legally permissible basis to see
some or all of the confidential information contained in the LDR. Accordingly, the Law
Department?s School Law Unit has redacted the LDR to protect the confidential
information it contains.

 

 

 

5 My.

 

 

 

 

 

     

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE OF CHICAGO
LAW DEPARWENT RONALD L. MARMER, GENERAL COUNSEL
Attorney-Client Privileged Work Product Document

 

Date: November 2, 2017

 

To: Ronald L. Mariner, General Counsel
cc: Douglas I-Ienning, First Deputy General Counsel

From: James G. Ciesil, Deputy General Counsel
Cc: Anna Slater, Senior Assistant General Counsel

Re: CPS Law Department Review and Analysis of the OIG Investigation Regarding
Consuella B. York Alternative High School Report No. 16-00276}

 

Background of Consuella B. York Alternative High School

A public school has existed within the Cook County Department of Corrections
(DOC) for nearly 100 years.1 During the early years, one teacher from the Chicago Board
of Education (?Board?) was assigned to teach rudimentary classes to inmates age 17
through 21. No credits were earned.

It was not until a class action lawsuit was filed by the Legal Assistance Foundation
and the Northwestern Legal Clinic in 1992 that the school Within DOC began to take the
shape that it is today.2 That lawsuit, commonly referred to as the Donnell C. consent
decree, led to a historic agreement among the United States Department of Justice, the
Illinois State Board of Education the DOC and the Board to educate pre?trial
detainees held by DOC under the age of 21.3 The Donnell C. consent decree was modified
on May 28, 2003, to take into consideration changes that had occurred at DOC.4

The Donnell consent decree and revised settlement agreement mandated the
parties to do the following:

 

1 See York Alternative High School website. yorkhsorg

2 See Donnell C. and the United States of America o. Illinois State Board ofEdncotion, Cook County
Department of Corrections, and the Chicago Board of Education, 92 8230.

3 See Donnell C. Settlement Agreement, Judge John Nordberg?s Order dated August 10, 1995.
4 See Judge Nordberg?s Order dated May 28, 2003, in 92 8230.

 

1 I p} a. ge-

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) DOC must conduct intake Screening of inmates, between the ages of 17 to 21, to
determine whether the inmate had a high school diploma or GED. If not, then
DOC is to refer the inmate to Board personnel;

DOC must provide the Board with access to all eligible detainees for educational
purposes from 8:00 am, to 9:00 subject to reasonable and necessary security
requirements determined by 

3) DOC shall not deny any student placed on lockdown or other disciplinary status
access to educational services unless reasonable or necessary security measures
require the denial or limitation;

4) If such denial occurs, the DOC Executive Director or his designees shall review the
circumstances if they extend for longer than three (3) days and provide proper
notification to the Board;

5) DOC shall make adequate classroom space available to the Board;

The Board must conduct educational screening within three (3) school days of
notification that the inmate would like to enroll. Boardstaff shall conduct the
relevant evaluations necessary, in accordance with the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act as to whether the inmate has a disability and
needs a 504 or an Individualized Educational Plan 

7) The Board shall provide speech and language services; -
8) The Board shall also provide transition plans for special education students; and

9) The Board shall provide four hours of suitable education instruction to prewtrial
detainees each school day With three (3) hours in core subjects and one (1) hour in
transition instruction.5

Shortly after the Donnell C. consent decree went into effect, the Cook County Jail
High School was renamed the Consuella 8. York Alternative High School (?York?) in
honor of Reverend Consuella York, who served as a volunteer chaplain at the Cook
County jail for more than 40 years.6 In 2001, York became accredited by certifying
that all completed coursework was transferrable and quali?ed toward a high school
diploma.

 

5 See judge Nordberg?s Order dated May 28, 2003, in 92 8230.
6 York website, yorkhsorg

 

2 I a I

 

 

 

 

 The Change in Educational Programming of Consuella B. Alternative York
High School Beginning in 2012 under the Leadership of Dr. Sharnette Sims

Several principals were assigned to York during its early years. Brenetta Glass
was the most prominent principal who served from 2007 to 2012.7 Principal Glass
modernized the educational structure of York and ran it similarly to other high schools
within the Chicago Public Schools Students were scheduled for eight (8) fifty
(50) minute periods per day. The courses offered students during this time period
increased dramatically as well. However, due to the short time period that students were
often incarcerated at DOC, very few students earned credit toward their high sChool
diploma.8

On July 1, 2012, Sharnette Sims became the principal of York. Dr. Sims has worked
with at?risk students within CPS for more than 20 years. From 1996 to 2000, Dr. Sims was
a special education teacher at McKinley Alternative High School. in 2000, Dr. Sims joined
the York teaching staff as a special education teacher. in 2007, Dr. Sims was selected to be
an Assistant Principal at York. She held that position to June 30, 2012. 

Dr. Sims received her Bachelor?s degree in English and Secondary Education, and
she earned her Master?s degree in Special Education from Chicago State University. In
2008, Dr. Sims earned her Doctorate degree from Loyola University of Chicago in
Administration and Supervision. Dr. Sims holds type 9, 10 and 75 teaching and
administrative certificates. Northwestern University selected Dr. Sims to become a
Chicago Fellow for the 2015?2016 school year. She has also served as a Principal Mentor
and Lead Principal Mentor for CPS over the last four years. Additionally, in 2017, Dr.
Janice Jackson selected Dr. Sims to serve on the Principal Advisory Committee.9

York has an Appointed Local School Council Members of. the York
ALSC include: Congressman Danny Davis; DOC representative Marlena Jentz, who is
the Director of Alternative Programs, Education Special Projects in and members
of the community and teaching staff. in 2012, the York ALSC recommended the Selection
of Dr. Sims to be York?s principal. In 2016, the York ALSC recommended that Dr. Sims?
four?year principal contract be renewed. On July 27, 2016, the Board approved this
recommendation.10 Dr. Sims? current contract runs from July 1, 2016 through June 30,
2020.11

From 2012 to 2015, Jennifer Vidis, the former Executive Director of the Office of
Education Options, supervised YOrk. Vidis played an integral role in reviewing and

 

7 See Brennetta Glass? personnel file. See also interviews of Sharnette Sims and James Jones.
8 See Interviews of Jennifer Vidis, Sims and Jones.

9 Interviews with Dr. Sims in September and October 2017. See also personnel ?le.

10 866 Board Report No. 

SIPage

 

 

 

 

 

. .

approving the educational shift that occurred under the leadership of Dr. Sims. In
August 2016, York and other options schools were moved to Network 11 and Chief of
Schools Megan Hougard.

Both the York ALSC and Megan Hougard recently evaluated Dr. Sims and gave.
her high marks for her leadership of York. On April 27, 2017, the York ALSC voted 7 to
0 to give Dr. Sims an ?Excellent? rating, the highest score achievable. She received a
perfect 4.0 in each performance category.12 Similarly, in July 2017, Chief Hougard gave
Dr. Sims a very good rating with both ?Distinguished? and ?Proficient" ratings in various
competency areas.13 Notably, Chief Hougard rated Dr. Sims ?Distinguished,? the highest
category, in developing staff excellence and pursuing self?disciplined thinking and
action.

Beginning in 2012, Dr. Sims began changing the educational structure of York in
an attempt to better meet the needs of its students. Dr. Sims did not make these
educational changes on her own or without approval from her supervisors. Rather,
Executive Director Vidis commissioned a study of York by David Domenici, Director at
the Center for Educational Excellence in Alternative Settings from the University of
Maryland. After touring the school and visiting with both DOC and York staff, Mr.
Domenici issued a report in October 2012, setting forth recommendations for both DOC
and York. Mr. Domenici recommended that greater communication and accountability
take place between DOC and York personnel. He recommended that the parties
implement a Memorandum of Understanding so that data could be more easily shared
and that working groups regularly meet. On the educational front, lVlr. Domenici
recommended a better academic structure for students such that they could actually earn
credits toward a high school diploma.14

During this same time, York implemented its 2012?2014 Continuous Improvement
Work Plan that set forth its educational plan over the next several. years. The
was voted on and approved by the York administration, York ALSC and staff.
Executive Director Vidis also approved the CIWP. The 2012?2014 CIWP implemented
the following key educational changes at York:

1) Created double?block scheduling. Instead of classes lasting 50 minutes, they were
expanded to 100 minutes;

2) Created cycles to measure the school year such that students would be enrolled in
nearly year?round classes measured on a per cycle basis; 

 

12 586 York ALSC 2016?2017 rating.

13 See Chief Hougard 2016-2017 rating.

1?1 See Memorandum and draft Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of
Corrections and the Chicago Public Schools, dated October 22, 2012, by David Domenici.

41Page

 

 

 

 

 

3) Decreased the amount of courses to two or three per cycle; and

4) Implemented the STAR assessment tests in reading and math so that York
students could be academically measured at the beginning and end of their
classes.15

The thought process behind these changes was to create a scheduling structure so
that students could realistically earn credits toward a high school diploma. Since York
students were incarcerated for approximately 100?120 school days, it was nearly
impossible for them to earn high school credits with a traditional high school schedule.
The double-block cycle?schedule allowed students to take classes and earn credits Within
a compact schedule. Additionally, the amount of classes offered to students decreased
from seven (7) or eight (8) per semester, to a maximum of three (3) per cycle.

The double?block cycle?schedule was discussed and approved in York?s 2014?2016 

as well.16 

The number of school days in each cycle has varied over the years. During
the 2013?2014 school year, York had five (5) cycles lasting approximately 40 school days.
The cycles began in August and ended in early July.17 Students could earn 0.5 credits for
each class completed.

In the 2014-2015, 2015?2016 and 2016?2017 school years, York had six (6) cycles that
lasted approximately 39 school days. The cycles began in early September and ran
through late August.18 With the six?cycle schedule, students could take up to three (3)
classes per cycle and complete 18 courses per year (earning nine (9) credits per year).

York?s unique schedule required waiver votes by the York teaching Staff on a
yearly basis to comply with collective bargaining requirements. Thus, at the end of each
school year, Dr. Sims would present her teaching staff with the proposed work schedule
for the next school year. Each year for the past four (4) years, the York teaching staff
approved it.19 Thus, the bell or work schedule approved over the last four school years
is as follows:

 

15 See 2012?2014 CIWP

16 566 2014?2016 CIWP.

17 See published York cycle schedule 148Y 

13 See published York cycle schedules for 15SY, and 17SY. The cycle schedule for York
during the 2017?2018 school year converted back to five cycles per year. This 
lengthened the number of school days in each cycle.

19 See?School Certi?cation of Waiver Vote on Daily Schedule for School Years 2013?14, 2014?15,
2015-16, and 2016?17.

 

.SiPage

 

 

 

 

York Bell Schedule

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7:25 to 7:27 am. 2 Tranmtion
1st Period 7:27 to 8:17 am. 50 Common Planning
8:17 to 8:29 am. 10 Transition
2nd Period 8:29 to 9:19 am. 50 Class
3rd Period 9:19 to 10:09 am. 50 Class
10:09 to 10:13 am. 4 Transition
4th Period 10:13 to 11:03 am. 50 Class
5th Period 11:03 to 11:53 am. 50 Class
11:53 to 11:58 am. 5 Transition
6th Period 11:58 to 12:48 pm. 50 Lunch
12:48 to 12:53 pm. 5 Transition
7th Period 12:53 to 1:43 p.111. 50 Class
8th Period 1:43 to 2:33 pm. 50 Class
2:33 to 2:40 pm. 7 Transition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minute Summary

Instruction
Pre riod 0

Collaboration Intervention 50 50
Lunch 50 50
Transition 35 35
TOTAL: 435 . 435

    

Thus, under the York schedule, students could receive 3900 minutes of classroom
instruction per class during a given cycle (100 minutes it 39 school days).

The Board?s High School Promotion Policy provides, in relevant part, the
following:

For purposes of this policy, a ?unit of credit? is 120 hours of classroom
instruction. A half unit of credit, which is 60 hours of classroom instruction
3600 minutes], represents the credit that students can earn for
successfully completing one semester of class work in a particular course.

 

Sitiage

 

 

 

 

 

Class Attendance

Students must attend their classes in order to learn and retain course subject
matter. Consequently, students? success in earning credits toward
promotion shall be determined by attendance in class as well as by
performance on academic assignments. Therefore, students who have
unexcused absences in 20% or more of the classes in a particular course
during the period for which a unit of credit is earned shall not pass the
course and shall receive no credit towards promotion.

(Emphasis added) (Board?s High School Promotion Policy, Board Report No. 04?0128?
Sections l(A) and As will become more evident below, unexcused absences
provide the key metric for determining whether a student's attendance is sufficient to
earn credit. Additionally, While classroom attendance is a factor in earning credits
toward graduation, a students performance on academic assignments is the more critical
factor.

 

Financial Funding of Consuella B. York Alternative High School

Unlike most CPS schools, York?s funding is not based on a student?based
budgeting formula.20 Since York?s student population is subject to forces outside
of the school administration?s control, York was not shifted to the 8813 model in fiscal
year 2014:. Rather, like other similar CPS high schools the Nancy 8. Jefferson juvenile
court school and the Peace and Education and Simpson Alternative High School), York
remained on a quota model. York is funded based upon the type and amount of core
academic programs that the school offers each year.

 

20 See FY2013 CPS Budget Book.

3 Budget Book:

Funding of alternative schools is not based on any quote or perwpupll formula tied to enrollment.
Enrollment counts at alternative schools can often be misleading, given the highly transient nature of
the students. Rather, the core allocation given to aitemative schoois is based on the programs run at
the school and the needs of the students served. in FY2013, aitemative schools will receive a core
allocation of $19.4 million. These alternative schools are projected to serve approximately 1,600
students.

See also Interviews of Michael Sitkowski and Clare McGuire from the Board?s Budget Office.

 

 

 

7 ?age

 

 

 

York?s budget increased over the last four fiscal years, even though its student

enrollment declined by 40 percent.

Enrollment

 

FY Budget

FY15 7,261,521 341

FY16 7,496,893 290

FY17 7,401,967 270

FY18 7,617,075 203 (projected)

In fiscal year 2017, the Board chose to fund a portion of the core educational
program at all four district alternative schools with Title I funds. These funds are not tied
to the Title I discretionary formula in any way, and are not under direct principal control.
Rather, the Title I funds function the same way as the locally funded quota
positions. Additionally, these funds make up only a small portion of the overall financial

budget of York. (See chart below)

Supplemental Funding Sources: Discretionary Grants

FY18 Supplemental state aid (SGSA) $100,000 (enrollment percentag
below poverty) I

FY18 Title 1 funds poverty index $142,000

York does not receive any federal grant funds.

Because of these funding methods, as will be discussed in greater detail below, the
York administration had no financial incentive to falsify enrollment data or student

attendance data.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Staff Structure and Layout of Consuella B. York Alternative High School
The staff at York consists of the following individuals:

A) One Principal? Sharnette Sims 
B) Two Assistant Principals James Jone
C) Five Lead Teachers Amaze Jones
Murray
D) Two Key Clerks~ Latasha Mille
E) Two Technology Coordinators? Stephen Godfrey ..

  
   
  
 

   
   
    
 
    

and Shone Johnson

Kimberly Bradley Monica

 

G) One Counselor Kenya Johnson
H) One Case Manager Karl Schenk
1) Thirty (30) Teachers broken into the following areas
1) Special Education Teachers - NaTanya Cooper

 

    

Adenike Fafore
Sabrina Slater

   

Smitha Mathen

 

ce Teachers ~Doris A beta ,Carla Burns
and Eddy Pierre
3) History Teachers - Ayode'i Griffin

2)

 
 
 
 

 

5 Marc Rosier Yvette Torres

   

Kim Kirksey and Javier Sandoval

 

4) Math Teachers Dan C-ieslik

 

 

Nabulungi Pickett

 

5) Fine Arts Teachers Daniela Veljkovic April

Robyn Sutton

6) World Language Carmen Martine 

7) English Langua Arts Teachers John Foley
Tonya Collins

8) Technolo- 3 Teachers - Will walker 
Watts

J) Six (6) teaching vacancies existed at the beginning of the 2017? 18 school year.

     

   

Kwaine Burto

        
 

John Macis and Norsha

   

 

The teaching force is 70% African?American, 17% White, 10% Hispanic, and 3% Asian.
The York administration consisting of the principal, assistant principal and lead teachers
is 75% African?American, 12.5% White and 12.5% l-IiSpanic.22

 

21 Since it has become clear that race 1
racial profile of critical individuals.
Hispanic. And for Asian.

22 See York Schoo os er. Racial identity of personnel Was determined by personal interviews
and self-identification in Peoplesoft.

 
 
 

part in the OIG investigation, I have inserted the
for African American. 

  

 

   

 

 

 

 

9 ?age

 

At the beginning of the 2017?2018 school year, approximately 200 students were

enrolled in York. Currently, the students are taught in four Divisions.23 They are:

A. Division IV

Division IV is a female?only low security division. Division IV consists of eight (8) tiers
where inmates are housed. Currently, 20 students attend York from Division IV. Three
teachers are assigned to three classrooms. Two teachers are general educatiOn, and one
is a special education teacher. Class sizes are small, between 5 to 20 students.24 I

Lead Teacher Monica Murray described the typical dif?culties that York staff have

in getting students to class and identifying why a student may miss class. Murray stateddaily basis, Murray will email the DOC Division Supervisor the student
roster. This roster will have the first and last name of the student, tier location Of
the student, and the DOC inmate 

Division IV serves breakfast at 4:30 to 5:00 am.

Students are brought down to classrooms tier by tier for the start of the block 1
class at 8:29 am. Depending upon who the Tier DOC of?cers may be, some tiers
are released on time While others are not. Tier DOC of?cers rotate positions on a
frequent basis (usually every 30 days). Thus, some Tier DOC of?cers are slower
than others and may not know the protocol for releasing York students.

As students arrive to the classrooms, Murray will take student attendance on a
roster clipboard.

Teachers will also take student attendance and log it in GradeQuick, an internal
software system where teachers keep student information such as attendance,
class assignments, grades and test results. Many teachers "will also take attendance
on a roster sheet. I
Students, on occasion, arrive late to class based upon the release time from their
tier.

If a student is absent, Murray must physically go up to the Division IV tiers to find
out why the student is absent. 

Murray will ask the DOC Tier Officers or Tier Sergeants as to the reason a student
did not show up to class that day.

The DOC Officers or Sergeants will verbally inform Murray their understanding
as to why a student is absent. Some examples include: the student ?refused?;
a DOC Officer did not allow a student to be released from the the
student transferred to a different Division; the student was released by 

 

23 The Department of Corrections determines which division to house students. Recently, DOC
closed Division Ill completely ending all classes that were taking place there.

24 See Interviews of Lead Teacher and three teachers assigned to Division IV.

25 See Interview of Monica Murray and Student Roster Daily Sheet.

 

.. 101? a 

 

 

 

 

 

 the student was sent to the penitentiary; the student is in the infirmary; 
the student is Visiting with her attorney; the student is on cell restriction; the
student is being punished and has been sent to the ?hole? (first floor of Division
lX South Tower); the student is in the law library for the day; I don?t know;
and other reasons. 

10) As stated by Murray; ?Many times I do not know Why a student is absent."

11) At 10: 30 a. in. each day, Murray completes a Google share document and sends her
student attendance to Latasha Miller; York clerk. Miller will input the student
attendance into the of?cial software used by all CPS schools to track
student attendance and other student information. In the Google share document;
a Lead Teacher must select one of eight dropdown options to classify student
attendance They are:

a) Sick/ Cermak76- Excused Absence (AEX)

b) Court? Excused Absence (SF)

c) Refusal Unexcused Absence (AUX)

d) DOC cell restriction Excused Absence (AEX)

e) Held by DOC - Excused Absence (AEX)

f) Transferred Went Home No attendance entered
g) Shipped No attendance entered

h) No Substitute Teacher - Excused Absence (AEX)

12) Five out of the eight categories listed above will result in a student being
designated with an ?excused? absence. Two will result in no attendance being
entered at all. Only when a student refuses? to attend class will the absence be

?."unexcused

13) Most of the Lead Teachers will designate a student as ?Held by if they
cannot determine the whereabouts of the student. This will result in a student
being classified as an ??excused? absence in IMPACT.

14) The Lead Teachers will then send a PDF copy of their Google student attendance
document to the teachers within their division.

15) The teachers will then update their GradeQuick entries to change a students
attendance to re?ect how the Lead Teacher classified the student.

16). Students will attend classes in block 1 and 2 in the morning. The students will
then return to their tier in the early afternoon for lunch.?

17)Thus; students must again; be released by DOC Tier officers from their tiers to
attend the block 3 afternoon classes.

18) Division IV has a particularly challenging afternoon schedule since DOC locks
down all cells at 1:05 pm. Block 3 classes; however; begin at 12:53 p.111. Therefore;
if a tier is running late by as little as 12 minutes; the cells will go on lockdown
before the students are released to attend block 3 classes.

19) Murray will have to go to each tier and basically ?beg" DOC Tier Officers to re-
open the cells so that students may be released for class.

 

 

 

 

26 Cerrnak Hospital or the infirmary. I . 

 

 

 

20) Murray indicated that it is not easy to get these cells opened. Sometimes she is not
. successful, and the student will miss block 3 classes.?

21) At the end of each day, York staff will send DOC a student tracker document that
will contain: the total number of students enrolled; the total number of
students who attended class; when students arrived to class in the morning and
afternoon; when students departed in the afternoon; whether class was
Cancelled; whether students did not attend class and Why; if an infraction
occurred during class time; and if so, was a DOC officer noti?ed and when.28

B. Division VI

Division V1 is a medium security division that houses male inmates in two
categories: General Population (GP) and Protective Custody (PC). Inmates will be placed
in PC for a variety of reasons including but not limited to their gender identi?cation and
safety issues. The two populations cannot mix for York purposes.

There are 24 tiers in Division Vi. Currently 72 students attend courses in nine (9)
classrooms. Twelve (12) teachers are assigned to Division VI. Two of these teachers are
special education teachers.

Due to the size of Division VI, the process for gathering student attendance
information differs from other Divisions. Lead Teacher Renee Wisniewski will
collect attendance roster sheets from each classroom rather than checking off names
herself on her own student roster sheet. However, after gathering the student attendance
information, Lead Teacher Wisniewski will still physically go to DOC Tier Officers and
Sergeants to obtain the whereabouts of students that are absent that day.

C. Division IX South and North Towers)

Division IX is a maximum security division. Most inmates have been charged with
serious crimes, such as murder, rape and other egregious offenses. Many of the inmates,
if convicted, will be sentenced for life terms. As one Lead Teacher told the author, ?There
is no hope in Division 

Division TX is divided into a North and South Tower. Inmates do not mix between
towers. TheSouth Tower has a GP and a PC population. Those students may not be
intermingled in classes. Eight teachers are assigned to the North and South Towers.
Three of the eight teachers are special education teachers.

 

27 After interviewing all the Lead Teachers it is apparent that they must depend upon personal
follow?up to obtain the information from DOC of?cers.

23 586 Interviews of Lead Teachers Murray, Wisniewski, Jones, Ballesteros, and Bradley. See also
Doc Tracker Chart.

29 See Interview of Lead Teachers Amaze Jones and Angelita Ballestros.

 

12 1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the North Tower there are three classrooms. A maximum of 45 students, or 15
per class, may be enrolled. There are 6 tiers in the North Tower.

In the South Tower there are currently two classrooms. There are 22 students in
the South Tower. Fourteen (14) are GP students While the remaining eight (8) students
are PC.

The ?hole,? or solitary con?nement, is located on the ?rst floor of the South Tower.
The ?hole" used to be segregated for inmates that engaged in misconduct for Division IX.
According to Lead Teacher Amaze Jones, in 2016 DOC decided to stop segregating the
?hole? and began housing inmates from all divisions that had engaged in misconduct.
This action led to Division IX South Tower inmates clogging their toilets and ?ooding the
?hole.? During 2016, York had classrooms in the basement of the South Tower. Those
classrooms were ?ood ed as well. They had to be evacuated. To date, no more classes are
conducted in the basement of the South Tower.

D. Division XI

Division XI is located in a separate building east of California Avenue near 31th
Street. Divisions IV, VI and IX are located west of California Avenue between .27th and
31St Street. Division X1 is in the newest of the division complexes.

Division XI has four classrooms for maximum security inmates, and one classroom
for medium security inmates. The populations cannot mix. Currently, there are 30
students enrolled from maximum security, and 15 students in the one medium security
classroom. The teachers must move between the classrooms, not the students.

There are six general education teachers and one special education teacher
assigned to Division XI. 

E. On?Line Classes

Many York students take classes on-line as well. Renaissance Learning PEAK
administers these courses. The students take the classes in a classroom in their division.
Each student will have a laptop which is loaded with software for the specific class they
are taking. Typical on?ljne classes will be health, physical education, driver?s education,
economics and language classes.

A York teacher will be in the classroom. The mentor teacher will be visible to the
student only on his or her laptop. Only the York teacher will have an internet connection
to the mentor teacher running the class. If a student has a question for the mentor teacher,
the student must request the classroom teacher to relay the question to the mentor

 

13lPage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

teacher. Since students are denied most internet access while in class, this is the only way
a student may communicate with the on-line instructor.30

y, Student Enrollment, Movement and Release from Consuella B. York
Alternative High School

The OIG acknowledged in its Report that York presents special challenges 
Report p. 4). That also is true for DOC staff who do the best they can in a dif?cult setting.
One overarching problem is the lack of compatible technology to allow for timely and
accurate Communication between DOC and York personnel.

Students are enrolled in a variety of ways. The most common method begins with -

an eligibility sheet that is emailed by DOC Erik Roberts to the lead teachers. The
eligibility sheet identifies inmates who are eligible for enrollment. Roberts emails lead
teachers on a weekly basis a list of eligible inmates.31 The lead teachers will then schedule
an interview with the inmate to find out whether he or she wishes to enroll at York and
to gather background information on the inmate. This background information will focus
on whether the student had previously attended a CPS school and whether special
education services are needed.32 -

Lead teachers also enroll students by word of mouth in their division. Other
inmates or DOC guards will notify lead teachers that a certain inmate wants to enroll at
York. The lead teacher will then schedule an interview to gather the necessary
background information to enroll the student.

The lead teachers will email a PDF of the enrollment packet to Latasha Miller and
she will formally enroll the student on IMPACT. Miller will then give an Enrollment
Sheet to Andrea Davis. Davis will research the student to obtain background credit
information. Approximately 90% of the time, the student will have been previously
enrolled in CPS. This makes it much easier for Davis to determine the grade level of the
student, how many credits have previously been earned and any special education
evaluation. This information also makes it easier to create a schedule of classes needed
to graduate.

However, 10% of enrollees have never attended a CPS school. Davis, with the
assistance of Christopher Payne, York Technology and Records Clerk, will research prior
suburban schools attended by the student and obtain tranScripts from those school

 

30 See Interviews of Assistant Principals James Iones and Shone Johnson, and teacher Amanuel
Gebreselassie.

31 See Review of Emails between Roberts and York Lead Teachers in 2016 and 2017.

32 586 interviews of Lead Teachers, Assistant Principals. See also DOC intake Questionnaire and
emails between Erik Roberts and Lead Teachers.

 

141,523533

 

 

 

districts. Interpretation of transcripts from other school districts is oftentimes difficult
and takes time.

- Davis will go to the website to find out Where the student 13 housed. This
will assist Davis to begin creating a class schedule for the student Davis knows which
classes are offered 111 each division. Davis also has to determine whether the student 15
in the GP or PC population and classified as a special education student Approximately
20 to 25% of York students are classified as special education students with lEPs. Davis
will then classify the student 5 grade level and create a graduation class schedule that
will be given to the lead teacher.33

The lead teacher will then officially enroll the student in classes and notify DOC
by sending enrollment information to DOC Erik Roberts.

York has no control as to when a student leaves DOC. When a student leaves
- York, DOC Roberts notifies the lead teachers. Oftentimes, this occurs via email after the
lead teacher prompts Roberts as to the whereabouts of a student. Common examples are
as follows:

1) Lead Teacher Wisniewski emailed DOC Roberts on September 13 2017

7: 28 a. rn. with a byline "Student Query? asking the status of student
berts res onds at 1: 35 p. In. that same day that
However no speci?c date is
was discharged. Roberts states.
ably
has

   

     
   

 

provided Roberts as to when
as not been updated in the system [pres

  
 

Based on DOC Robertsr response, Wisniewski would not know when student
More critically, Wisniewski does not know the status of stu en
and Roberts does not know either, since computers had not been

updated for at least eight (8) days.
Another email exchange is as follows:

2) Lead Teacher Wisniewski emails DOC Roberts on April 3 2017, 1:04
requesting the status of students and.
Roberts responds at 7:07 pm. that same day that studen

  
 

  
 

 

33 See Inter views of Latasha Miller and Andrea Davis. See also Sample Intake and Enrollment

paperwork and scheduling sheets.
34 See 9/ 13/ 2017 email exchange between Roberts and Wisniewski Subject. Student Query

 

15lkagem

  

 

 

 

 

Roberts further provides that studen

   
 

 
  
 

uld have noted that studen
when, in fact, DOC had alreadj
. Only after Wisniewski asked did DOC provide th
information three days later?"5

 

Wisniewslci? 
absence? for

     
   

A. common thread on these emails is that DOC Roberts will reply that a
student has been ?discharged? or ?released to the community,? but the response does
not include a date.36

There are more extreme examples of delay. For example:

3) Shone Johnson email to DOC Marlena Jentz on 2/ 20 2014, entitled Student
Transfer Request. In that email, Johnson requests that 15 students be
moved to different divisions so that student enrollment may take place. On
2/ 27/ 2014, seven days later, Jentz responds that she requested DOC to
move four (4) of the 15 students. However, in that email Ientz informs
Johnson that six (6) of the students had already been discharged from York,
some as early as 2/ 1/2014, 27 days earlier 37

4) Lead Teacher Wisniewski sent DOC Roberts her student roster in June 2017.
Roberts responded on June 6, 2017, identifying 13 students that had already
left DOC as early as 4/6/2017, two months earlier.

DOC also will move students without notifying York staff. - There are several
emails between DOC staff and York lead teachers notifying the lead teachers after the fact
that students have been moved to different divisions??8 This delay causes inaccuracies in
student attendance-information that York is reporting in IMPACT.

 

35 See 4/ 3/ 2017 email exchange between Roberts and Wisniewski, Subject: Student Status
Update

36 See 5/ 31/ 2017 email exchange between Roberts and Murray, Subject: Division 4 Court Dates.
See also 7/25/2017 email exchange between Roberts and Ballesteros, Subject: Division 9 South -
Roster27/ 2014 email exchange between Johnson and lentz. Subject: Student
Transfer Request.

33 See 1/ 16/ 2017 email exchange between Sims and Ientz, Subject: Return from Winter Break.
See also 1/ 27/ 2017 email exchange between Ballesteros and Howard, Subject: Division 3 Annex.
See also 2 24/ 2017 email exchange between lentz and Iohnson, Subject: Updates on Div. 9. See
also 5/ 19/2017 email exchange between Roberts and Wisniewski, Subject Division 6 Request.

 

m16 saga

 

 

 

 

 Central Office?s Knowledge of York?s Data Challenges

The unique education structure and environment of York do not allow it to neatly
input data into IMPACT, which houses the Student Information Management (SIM)
system, Gradebook and Student Service Management (SSM). Thus, data inputted by
York staff into IMPACT occasionally does not match the events happening in the school,
and leads to incorrect data conclusions. Common examples are:

1)

While the enrollment of York may be only 200 to 300 students per year at any
given moment, the continuous student turnover results in York staff actually
enrolling between 800 to 1500 students per year.39 Students are enrolled for
short periods of time and sometimes earn few, if any, credits while enrolled.

- This massive turnover of students increases the occurrence of clerical data

3)

entry errors.

The IMPACT system is not programmed to handle the York cycle?schedule.
York personnel held meetings with Central Office IMPACT and scheduling
experts in 2013 and 2014. These meetings did not lead to a permanent solution.
Rather, it was agreed that York would enter attendance only gage a day, like
an elementary school. The usual practice for a CPS high school is to enter
attendance after every period. 

Additionally, instead of a weekly schedule, YOrk was approved to enter
schedules based upon a Relative Day Pattern, which meant York kept the same
schedule for every day of the school year.?10 This led to a simplification of
attendance and scheduling information inputted into IMPACT. Instead of

building a schedule around periods, the students were enrolled by course!?

5)

York does not control the entry and departure date of its students. Rather, York
relies upon information that it receives from DOC. As noted above, sometimes
that information is delayed or unknown by DOC. This necessarily leads to
IMPACT data errors.

York clerks Latasha Miller and Andrea Davis believed that a student must still
be ?enrolled" in IMPACT so that student grades may be entered or a
graduation processed even though they knew that student no longer attended

 

39 See Student Enrollment Data from York for 2013 through 2017 school years.

40 See Notes and email exchanges between York personnel and Branson Robinson, Zakieh
Mohammed, Byron Houzz and Jennifer Vidis dated 2/ 22/ 2013, 6 27/ 2014, 7/ 7/ 2014,
7/8/2014, 7/9/2014, and 7/10/2014.

 

 

 

 

 

17 Page

 

 

York. Thus, IMPACT data showed students enrolled? in York when, in fact,
they had leftfi2 

6) Miller also made clear to both OIG investigators and this author that the default
for SIM student attendance is to .mark the student as ?present.? Miller?s
practice was to mark the student as ?present? until she was told otherwise by
the lead teacher. Only when a lead teacher tells her that a student has been
discharged or tells her to correct the attendance will Miller delete the ?present"
code in SIM.43

 

VII. The Office of the Inspector General?s Investigation

The Board received the 016?s investigation into York on June 30, 2017.44 The Law
Department reviewed the report and presented it to the Disciplinary Committee for
consideration on July 31, 2017. The Discipline Committee expressed concerns about the
OIG report. The key concerns were as follows:

1) Clear errors existed in the OIG Report. The OIG found that York?s ?falsified
data artificially in?ated York?s SQRP Scores and York?s Funding? (OIG Report,

p. 44). However, York does not receive SQRP45 scores, and York is not subject
to SBB funding.

2) The OIG opined about the educational rigor of instruction given to York
students, the length of cycles and the holding of multiple courses during the
same class (OIG Report, pp. 4?5, 12, 32, 43?44). The OIG has no expertise on
educational issues. Additionally, the 016 did not interview any educational
experts to determine whether the York educational structure was ?awed.

3) The OIG did not interview anyone from DOC. Additionally, there is no
indication in its report that any OIG investigator ever visited Yorkf?c6

 

42 588 interviews of Latasha lVIiller and Andrea Davis. In October 2017, based upon the OIG
report, Miller and Davis received further training from IWACT personnel and learned data
entry methods to avoid the incorrect ?enrollment? data. -

43 See interview of Latasha Miller and OIG Report p. 37.

44 Shortly before the close of the fiscal year, the OIG will submit multiple reports to the Board.
The author counts that the OIG submitted 19 investigative reports to the Board during the
months of May and June 2017. Thus, more than 30% of its 63 reports for the year are submitted
by the OIG to the Board during the final two months of the fiscal year.

45 See Interview of Megan Hougard and Denise Little, and York reporting data.

46 This author visited York three times and met with six DOC of?cials at a meeting held on
September 18, 2017.

 

 

is I 9 age

5:127 2117?: 5:31;;

 

 

 

 

4) The OIG did not interview any of Dr. Sims? supervisors.47 Thusknowing whether Dr. Sims was solely responsible for all the

perceived educational and data errors at York or Whether her decisions were
known and approved by her supervisors (OIG Report, 

The 016 did not interview any of York?s assistant principals or lead teachers.48

The interviewed only a handful of current York teachers. Notably, most
of the teachers interviewed by the OTC had been disciplined by Dr. Sims or had
engaged in some other action that tends to show bias. Additionally, the DIG

investigation relied upon anecdotal hearsay statements by former York
teachers.?19 -

Nearly all the teachers interviewed by the OIG were White, even though 70%
of the teaching force is African American, 10% Hispanic and 3% are Asian (See
Teachers interviewed on pages 19, 20 and 21 below).50 Additionally, during the
16?month OIG investigation, nine (9) OIG investigators were working on the

York all are White. The two exce tions
were

 

 

(See 01G Case Activrry Reports 1 through
33). -

The misapplied the Board?s High School Promotion Policy, Board Report
No. 04-0128-P01. The concluded that students must have 3,600 minutes
of instruction or else they cannot earn credits (OIG Report, p. 43). This finding
is wrong. A student may not earn a credit only when a student has 20% or
more unexcused absences. Additionally, under the Board Policy, performance
on academic assignments is more important than attendance.

The 016 appears to have conducted a last?minute data dump of DOC and
Board data involving York student enrollment, attendance and credit
information. (See CARS 25 through 33). The OIG CARS state that OIG

 

47 This author interviewed Jennifer Vidis and Megan Hougard the two director supervisors of
Dr. Sims during the relevant time period at issue.

43 This author interviewed both York assistant principals and all five lead teachers.

49 This author interviewed 26 current York teachers. All interviews were conducted in person
except for two that were conducted by phone (Michael Mitchell (absent on day of visit) and
Robyn Sutton (currently absent due to a maternity leave)). All teachers were interviewed
except for teachers previously interviewed by the OTC.

19 eage

  
    

 

 

 



investigators conducted the analysis of DOC and York data beginning on
June 28, 2017, and issued the 016 report to the Board on June 30, 2017.

10) Such last minute merging of data with little time for review led to errors in the
01G data and analysis. This last-minute analysis is perplexing because the OIG
began its investigation on February 28, 2016, more than 16 months before it
issued its Report. 

A. The OlG?s Investigation concluded that the York Educational Structure is
Flawed and that York Students are Receiving Credits that are Not Deserved.
The Finding is Not Supported by the Record.

1. The OIG Relied Heavily on Interviews of Only 11 Teachers.

The OlG?s conclusion that York is educationally flawed is largely based upon its
interviews of 11 past and present York-teachers. Of those 11 teachers, ten (10) were critical
of York and Dr. Sims. Of those ten (10) teachers, eight (8) are White, one (1) is Asian and
one (1) is African American. Of the (10) teachers who were critical of York and Dr. Sims,
only one (1) teacher has not previously been disciplined by Dr. Sims or been denied a
requested position by Dr. Sims.

Since the OIG relied heavily on these teachers? interviews, it is important to note
their background and what may have influenced their statements. They are:

- Former teacher who last worked at York on October 10, 2015.
. was on a for most of 2015 until he left York. (016 CAR

No. 2). had applied for a Curriculum Coordinator position at York in
July 2014. After inte ing with Dr. Sims and others, . was not selected
for the position. filed an EOCO discrimination charge in August 2015,
but it was dismissed in January 2016.51

     
    
   

  

 
 
   

  

- Former teacher who last worked at York on January 7,
2016 (016 CAR No. 3). Dr. Sims a Level 2 Performance
Improvement Plan disciplinary warning on April 24, 2014, for showing an
unauthorized non?education movie to students on more than one occasion. .52

  

 

 

51 See Curriculum Coordinator emails between Sims and in July and August 2014.. See
also EQCO Findings dated January 8, 2016. See also Report pp. 5-7.

52 583 Level 2 PIP and rebuttal statement. See also 016 Report pp. 8-9, and Attachment
1.

 

zglpage

 

 

 



 

 

 
 

Current teacher at York (OIG CAR No. 9).
lead teacher position at York, but Dr. Sims did not select him.53

 

applied for a

 

Former teacher who last worked at York on or about May 6, 2015
(OIG CAR No. 4). was seen by DOC guards showing students an
unauthorized internet websrte on May 6, 2015. Abruptly after this inciden
took a and eventually resigned on July 20, 2015. The DOC
subsequently revoked his security clearance.5?1

 

 
 

 

    

er teacher who last worked at York on August 1, 2016
(OIG CAR No.5). ?led a grievance based upon Dr, Sims denying him pay
for 11 benefit days he requested in July 2016. 55

 
 
 

Current teacher at York (OIG CAR No. 6).56

Current teacher at York (OIG CAR No. 8). has
been repeatedly disciplined by Dr Sims. Dr. Sims issued a Level 1 PIP on
A ril 12, 2013, for excessive absenteeism On December 11, 2013, Dr Sims issued
Level 2 PIP for poor attendance, excessive tardiness and failure to
perform duties. On April 30, 2014, Dr. Sims issued a Level 2 PIP for
allowing students to play music and games in her classroom during instructional
time On June10, 2015, Dr Sims issue a Level 2 PIP for having little, if
any, documentation in support of that she entered for students. Finally,
on June 13, 2017, Dr. Sims issued a Level 3 PIP for excessive unexcused
tardiness. Level 3 PIP was upheld by an independent mediator on July 28,
2017. was also rated low 13 Dr. Sims in her REACI-I observations during
5- 2016 school year. ppealed her low rating and won. However,
1as evaluated by an educational expert outside of York during the 2016?
2017 school year, who likewise gave her a poor rating 57

 

 

 

 

 

   
 
 

 

 
 
  
 

   

Current teacher at York (OIG CAR No. 11). is the York
filed a grievance on 21, 2013,
complaining about the York Bell schedule and that teachers were working too

 

 

 

53 See 016 Report pp. 11- 13, and Attachments 6 and 7.
mails dated 111 Ma 2015. See also Law hivestigation See DOC Notice
from entry into DOC. See also OIG Report p. 18, and

     

Attachment 2

55 See Grievance No. 16-08?585 See also OIG Report p. 19.

port pp. 19?20, and Attachments 3 and 4. 

Disciplinary tile and REACH evaluations. See also OIG Report pp. 20?21.

  

 

 

lePage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wrote a biting response to the grievance in a
. ttacking his reasoning and credibility.58

much. In March 
two?page email to

 
  

 

 
 
  

- Former teacher who last worked at York on June 30, 2017
20). Dr. Sims denied a professional development workshop
wanted to attend in December 2015. Dr. Sims met and instituted
due to her 17 absences
the previous school year. On July 19, 2017, iled a grievance against
Sims due to the fact that Dr. Sims denied her use of a personal business day. That
grievance was advanced by the CTU to arbitration.59

 
 

Former programmer at York. He was released from
programming duties due to incompetence and returned to the teaching ranks on
June 1, 2015. He is a current teacher at York CAR Nos. 12 and 17).60

 

    

- Current teacher at York (016 CAR. No. 23).
not mg ?5 V9 t0 say about York or Dr. Sims?l

   

Excluding teache who had nothing negative to say about York or Dr.
Sims nine (9) of the remaining ten (10) teachers had all ?led grievances, EOCO charges,
been disciplined or been denied a promotion Dr Sims prior to being interviewed by
the 016. The one exception was teacher Additionally, most of the former
teachers had left York more than a year ago. The OlG?s interview summaries lack
specificity as to what they were alleging against Dr. Sims or the practices occurring at
York.

 

The racial implications also are apparent. Although 70% of York?s teaching staff
is African American the interviews included only two (2) African American teachers
out of a total of 11 interviews. And only one (1) of the two (2) African American teachers
had negative comments about York or Dr. Sims. I

 

  

58 See Grievance No. 13-01-073 (mma) and March 2013 emails between
01G Report pp. 21?22, and Attachments 8 and 9.

59 See Grievance No. 17-07?052 (ac) and July 2016 and November 2015 emails between
and Sims. See also 01G p. 23-25, and Attachments 5, 20, 21 and 22).
See June 1, 2015 email from Sims See also OIG Report pp. 25427).

53 See 01G Report pp. 13-14, and Attachment 2'7.

'ld Sims. See also

     
   

 

221?7a??e

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. The OIG Did Not Interview Dr. Sims? Supervisors or Other Educational
Experts. 

The did not interview Dr. Sims? supervisors or the educational experts that

had visited York, evaluated its educational programs and conducted observations of
teachers and the principal. This author did so, and their conclusions are as follows:

[ennifer Vidis was fully aware and approved the double-block cycle-schedule
that Dr. Sims implemented. This educational structure was discussed in detail in
the 2012-2014 and-20142016 CIWP that were reviewed and approved by the York
LSC and York teaching staff. Additionally, Vidis approved counting student
attendance once a day to take into c0nsideration the unique structure of York.
Vidis also instituted the STAR assessment as a means of tracking student growth
data in math and English!?32

Megan Hougard, Chief of Schools for Network 11 has been Dr. Sims' direct
supervisor since August 2016 to the present. Hougard evaluated York like any
other school in her Network. Hougard noted that all her principals are evaluated
according to the CPS Principal Evaluation framework which includes: beginning,
middle and end of year optional conferences, two required formal observations
and artifacts review. All principals in Network 11 maintain an artifacts? folder by
Principal Competency from the evaluation framework. These folders are kept in
a Google drive and updated by principals with artifacts used as evidence in their
evaluation. Prior to the beginning of the year (BOY) conference, principals
complete a Leadership Development Plan (LDP) with principal practice goals in
one strength area and one growth area aligned to the Evaluation Competencies
and Student Growth Goals. Progress towards these goals guide the Middle of Year
(MOY) and End of Year (EOY) conferences. All principal evaluation feedback and
ratings are maintained in the Re?ect and Learn System.

In addition, high school principals complete the Instructional Core Project (ICP),
which includes a review of curriculum, instruction (classroom observations) and
assessment at the beginning, middle and end of year. Principals conduct a detailed
self-assessment in each area and provide evidence of practices described in each
section. During the BOY, MOY and EOY school walks, classrooms are observed
and curriculum samples, assessments and other artifacts are reviewed. Artifacts
and observations for ICP are also used in principal evaluation.

The BOY Leadership Development Plan meeting for Dr. Sims at York was
conducted on October 10, 2016. Dr. Sims selected a growth goal in competency 

 

62 See Jennifer Vidis interview.

 

 

a g, 

 

 

 

 

to improve the quality of teacher instructional planning as evidenced through
feedback on lesson plans and improvement in Reach ratings. She selected a
strength area to continue improvement in parent and community involvement as
evidenced through participation in transition fairs and student self?monitoring of
progress toward graduation. The student growth goals focused on improving
differentiated learning opportunities for students to improve attendance, credit
attainment and stability as well as improving STAR attainment as a result of the
improved teacher planning. Dr. Sims created SMART goals for each area
addressed and developed the monitoring tools to assess progress toward the
goals. All artifacts were uploaded in the Google folders by Competency. Hougard
approved the final LDP on November 6, 2016.

The BOY Instructional Core Project walk for York was conducted on September
27, 2016. Hougard completed this with NetwOrk staff Instructional Support Leader
(ISL) Nivedita Nutakki, Dr. Sims, and Assistant Principals Shone Johnson and
James Jones. Dr. Sims had all of the narratives, self?assessment and linked artifacts
thoroughly completed prior to the meeting. During the meeting, the team
discussed each area, reviewed the linked artifacts (which included unit plans and
assessments) and observed classrooms in Division XI. After observing classrooms,
the team debriefed their observations and provided written feedback linked to the
master ICP document.

The MOY Instructional Core Project walk for York was conducted on January 26,
2017, with the same team members as the BOY walk. This walk was used for the
Period 1 formal principal observation. The classrooms observed were in Division
VI. The MOY ICP walk consisted of reviewing progress toward the school?wide
SMART goals that aligned to the Principal LDP goals. Dr. Sims provided artifacts
linked to the ICP document and in her Google folders detailing the system for 
providing teacher feedback on unit plans and samples of feedback with the
accompanying plans. Dr. Sims maintained extensive tracking systems for teacher
planning submission, assignment and completion of feedback by administrators.
Dr. Sims also provided tracking systems for review of classroom pop-in
observations and assessments aligned to the instructional plans. Semester 1 STAR
data was not complete at the time of the observation. Dr. Sims did provide
evidence of progress toward goals in attendance and credit attainment. Hougard
conducted the MOY LDP conference with Dr. Sims on February 24, 2017. During
the MOY LDP Meeting, I-Iougard reviewed the evidence and Period 1 Principal
Ratings which were mostly proficient with Competency rated as Distinguished.

The EOY Instructional Core Project walk was completed on May 8, 2017 in
Division XI. Hougard conducted the EOY walk with ISL Nutakki, Dr. Sims and
Assistant Principal Johnson. The team reviewed the ICP document updated by
Dr. Sims including evidence of unit plans, assessments and progress toward

 

 

24JPa??e

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SMART goals. Classrooms were then observed and findings debriefed. Dr. Sims
provided updated artifacts for each of the areas reviewed, and she completed the
EOY self?assessment in the ICP document. Progress toward the SMART goal was
shown through updated tracking of unit plan feedback. Dr. Sims was also able to
show the Quarter 1, 2 and 3 student level data to support progress toward Student
Growth Goals. Dr. Sims maintained trackers to monitor student progress on credit
accumulation overall, credit attainment each cycle, grades and common
assessments. As a component of Period 2 Principal Evaluation, Dr. Sims
completed her Self-Assessment in the Re?ect and Learn System. The EOY 
Self-Assessment and artifacts review from Competency Google Folders were used
to complete the Period 2 Principal Observation and Summative Ratings in the
Re?ect and Learn System. Hougard?s overall assessment of York is that systems
and structures were highly organized and led by Dr. Sims. The final principal
evaluation rating was found to be proficient in most areas and distinguished in
two competencies.63

Nivedita Nutakki, the Instructional Support Leader for Network 11, has worked
for the Board for 16 years. For her first 11 years, Ms. Nutakki taught science at
Kenwood Academy High School. Ms. Nutakki has four Master?s degrees, all in
educational areas. She has spent her last five years as the ISL of Network 11.

 

During the 2016?17 school year, Ms. Nutakki visited York three (3) times. She
reviewed Dr. Sims" documents and participated in instructional 
of York. Ms. Nutakki found Dr. Sims to be extremely well-prepared and organized
compared to other principals in Network 11.

Ms. Nutakki reviewed baseline assessments of York using STAR data and
reviewed the Unit Plans of teachers. Ms. Nutakki conducted classroom
observations of science and literature classes. She found the students engaged and
asking questions of the teachers. Ms. Nutakki found the literature books used in

class complex and fully in line with sufficient educational rigor. She noticed no 

disruptions in class. Student attendance in class was a non?issue.

Ms. Nutakki did not notice whether multiple subjects were being taught in one
class at the same time. Based upon her paSt experience, however, credit recovery
programs and classes allow for such a practice.

 

63 See Multiple interviews of Hougard. See also l-longard Summary Memo dated October 14,

2017.

 

25 1 a 

 

 

 

Tinaya York is the former ISL of Network 11 from 2012 through 2016. Dr. York
worked for CPS for 17 years as a teacher, librarian, literary coach and ISL. Dr. York
recently received her doctorate from the University of Illinois at Chicago in
literacy. She currently works for the University of Chicago. I

While an ISL in Network 11, Dr. York visited York about ten (10) times per year.
She observed strong academic teachers and other teachers that were not that
strong. Dr. York saw in every classroom a heavy emphasis-in reading. She saw
teachers differentiate instruction. She also saw teachers complying with Common
Core School Standards (CCSS) for literacy classes. Dr. York found York to be very
similar academically to most high school in CPS. During the numerous times that

she was in York, Dr. York did not see one threat by a student toward a teacher.

Dr. York, similarly to Ms. Nutakki, did not notice whether teachers were teaching
multiple courses during the same class.

Dr. York opined that the educational model that Dr. Sims instituted made sense
based upon the unique background of York and its student body. Dr. York found
that Dr. Sims was very passionate about her students. Dr. Sims wanted strong
instruction for students. She wanted her students to get credit for the work they
performed. Dr. Sims pushed to have more technology in the York classrooms.64

LaShonda Hicks-Curry is the Instructional Effectiveness Manager that reports to
Michael Herring, the Director of Educator Effectiveness. Ms. Hicks?Curry visited
York 20 to 22 times during the 2016?17 school year.

Dr. Sims was very aggressive in evaluating her teachers. She consistently rated
her teachers lower than other high school teachers in the district. On average, Dr.
Sims rated twice as many of her teachers as "unsatisfactory? or ?developing? the
two lowest evaluation ratings than the average CPS high school during both the
2015?2016 and the 2016?2017 school years.65

Three teachers challenged their poor ratings to the REACH appeals committee.
These three teachers won their appeals. Therefore, Ms. Hicks-Curry was
designated to and others at York. The three
teachers were

 
 
 

According to Ms. HicksCurry, Dr. Sims was not happy that she was there, but she
eventually came around. Ms. Hicks?Curry found that the main problem that Dr.

 

64 See interview of Dr. York.
65 See Final and preliminary rating data from the Office of Teacher Quality for the two school
years in question.

 

Z?lpagg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sims had on her evaluations was that she was not collecting teacher?practice
evidence the right way and inserting it into the Re?ect and Learn system. While
Dr. Sims may not have entered the data correctly, Ms. Hicks?Curry ultimately
rated these three teachers the same as Dr. Sims and found the same weaknesses
that Dr. Sims had identi?ed. As noted by Ms. Hicks?Curry, Dr. Sims had the ?right
lens" in viewing her teachers? abilities.

Overall, Ms. Hicks?Curry found the educational materials given to York students
complied with Common Core School Standards. York was presenting a
curriculum and educational materials that aligned to CCSS.

However, Science was an area of weakness. Overall, the science teachers lacked
the content knowledge or pedagogy to effectively deliver a lesson to the students.
There was no depth to the teaching. The instruction was weak. Ms. Hicks?Curry

found the directives given by the school administration to be fine, but some of the 

teachers could not deliver the lesson adequately. Ms. Hicks?Curry noted that there
has been a push in science lately toward literacy science. The York teachers were
basically teaching literacy science which consisted of science vocabulary. This
practice met the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). On some occasions,
Ms. Hicks?Curry encountered teacher apathy toward their jobs and students. On
more than one occasion she heard teachers express the view that the student
?could not do this [the classroom work]."

Ms. Hicks?Curry found that the students were attentive and were asking questions
about their grades. Of the 20 plus times she was at York, Ms. Hicks?Curry did not
see one safety issue. She did not observe any verbal threats or exposure issues. In
fact, in her View, York classrooms were better managed than many other CPS
classrooms that she has visited. 

Ms. Hicks?Curry did not hear one teacher mention that he or she was being
pressured to give credits to students that did not deserve it.

Denise Little, the former Chief Operations Officer and Chief of Networks, visited

York during the 20132016 school year. She also visited Nancy B. Jefferson School
for incarterated juvenile students.

Overall, Ms. Little was impressed with her visit to York. She understood and
agreed with the creative schedule that Dr. Sims implemented for her students. Ms.
Little was satisfied with the student discipline imposed at York. Ms. Little was
happy with how well the school was run and recommended that Dr. Sims actually
collaborate with the principal of Nancy B. Jefferson so that some of her educational
decisions and structures be implemented thereMs. Little did recommend to Jennifer Vidis, the then supervisor over York, that an
assessment test be implemented so that York students could be measured as to
their academic progress. Based upon Ms. Little?s recommendation, Vidis
instituted the STAR assessment for York and Other Options schools.

From the personal assessment and review of York by the six educational experts, .

set forth above, Dr. Sims had implemented the right educational structure at York and
she was instituting strong procedures to hold teachers accountable for the lessons they
presented to students.

The 016 presented no review of York by any educational expert.
B. The OlG?s Specific Findings of Deficiencies of Academic Performance.

1. OIG Finding No. 1 - Cycles are Not Long Enough to Ensure Enough
Instruction (01G Report p. 43)

The misinterpreted the Board?s High School Promotion Policy. The OIG
incorrectly concluded that a student must attend class and receive 3,600 minutes of
instruction to earn a credit.

The Board?s High School Promotion Policy requires the denial of a credit only if a
student has unexcused absences of more than 20% of class (see Board?s High School
Promotion Policy, Board Report No. Section Additionally, classroom
attendance is only one factor in earning credits toward graduation. A students
performance on academic assignments is the more critical factor (151.).

The OIG does not present any data in its Report that any York student had
unexcused absences of more than 20% and still received a credit. Rather, the Report
focuses on excused absences and treats excused absences the same as unexcused
absences. However, students receive credit for class, even if they have excused absences
that total more than 20 of class?time. This is especially true for York students who often
do not control their ability to attend class.

York teachers will give make?up work to students who have excused absences
similar to other CPS high school teachers. 6?5 Ultimately, whether a student earns a credit
is based upon the classroom teacher 8 final assessment as to how the student performed
in class on assignments, participation and tests.

 

66 88:? Interviews of Principal Sims, Assistant Principals Johnson and James, the five Lead
Teachers, and 19 Teachers: Torres, Pickett, Jones, Kirksey, Watts, Collins, Griffin, Clark, Slater,
Sutton, Fafore, Gebreselassie, Rosier, Mitchell, Burton, Wright, Cooper, Burns, Martinez,

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

mmwa. 

 

 

Moreover, the evidence shows that 35% of York students do n9: earn credit even
though they are enrolled in classes. York data shows that nearly 20% of students enrolled
in a class do not receive credit, and that another 15% receive a failing credit.

At the most basic level, the OIG Report does not include any evaluation of York?s
instructional program by qualified professional educators.

2. OIG Finding No. 2 -- The Blended-Course Structure is Ineffective and
Dishonest (01G Report pp. 43-4}

The OIG concluded that it is academically ineffective and dishonest for teachers to
teach more than one course during a class. Once again, the OIG did not consult with any
qualified educators in reaching this conclusion.

Academic programs in CPS and throughout Illinois allow teachers to teach
multiple courses during a single class.67 This is found in summer school classes, evening
classes, credit recovery classes and integrated classes?g Teacher Kim Kirksey stated" that
she is teaching math at York in much the same way that she taught math at Robert
Lindblom Math and Science Academy High School in which she ?integrated? multiple
math courses in the same class. As she stated, a teacher needs to scaffold their lesson
appropriately, but it is a good way to deliver a lesson.69 Teacher Ayodeji Griffin stated
that he taught multiple courses during a single class when he taught history during night
school at Crane High School. It is very similar to how Ayodeji Grif?n teaches US. History
and Contemporary History during a single class at York.70 In fact, all the music and art
teachers at York expressed the view that teaching multiple art or music courses during a
single class worked well.71

While most York teachers did not express a concern about teaching multiple
courses during a single class, a significant minority of York teachers did express concern.
For instance, some science teachers expressed the concern that teaching biology and
chemistry during the same course is difficult. Additionally, some teachers expressed the
view that teaching three courses during a single class was not preferred or could be
particularly challenging if the grade level of the students get too broad.72 Those specific
issues should be considered by senior educators.

 

67 In fact, ISBE approved a pilot program for York and other CPS high schools to begin a
Competency?Based High School Graduation Requirement for the 2018-2019 school year. This
Pilot Program will blend courses and grade levels into a single?Subject competency area.

68 See Interviews of Hougard, Hicks?Curry, Nutakki, York and Little.

69 See Interview of Kim Kirksey.

70 See interview of Ayodeji Grif?n.

71 See Interviews of Pickett, Clark, Sutton and Mitchell

72 See Interviews of Collins, Maloney, Agbefe, and OIG interviews of Foley, Veljkovic and
Mathen.

 

 

29' page

 

 

 

 

C. The 018 found that York?s Student Enrollment Data and Attendance Data are
False and Show a Broad System of Falsified Data. The Finding is
Misplaced and Lacks Rigor.

The OTC: acknowledged that York is a unique educational setting which does not
fit neatly into the traditional school concept. York?s cycle~schedule and heavy student
turnover contributed to data being inputted into IMPACT that was not accurate.
Moreover, York attendance data and enrollment data largely depend upon how and
when DOC is able to provide the information to York?s staff.

The 016 had this information, but downplays its significance. The 
interviewed Will Walker, Alan Uppstad, Phil Jackson, Andrea Davis, Tuan Hoang,
Latasha Miller and Christopher Bilik (See CAR Nos. 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, and 24). These
interviews showed the following:

1) York had beenapproved to enter student attendance once a day, unlike most
high schools, to take into consideration its unique educational setting. This fact
necessarily led to students being marked present for block periods 2 and 3
when, in fact, they were not.

2) Central Of?ce personnel in charge of SIM and IT recognized that the
technology gaps would lead to less precise York data, but they approved the
processes that CPS technology could support at that time.

3) IMPACT would default a student to ?present? if the York clerk did not
affirmatively insert the attendance of a student on a given day.

4) York support staff Latasha Miller and Andrea Davis would keep 'a student
?enrolled? in IMPACT based upon their belief that doing so was the only way
to give a grade to a student or allow a student to graduate even though they
knew the student had already departed from DOC.

Despite the known technological challenges, the concluded that Dr. Sims
intentionally orchestrated a false data scheme to boost York?s SQRP scores and funding
Report pp. 39-45). The 016?s conclusion is not supported by the facts. First, as
mentioned previously, York does not receive a SQRP score and its funding is not tied to
student attendance or enrollment. Second, Dr. Sims? supervisors and Central Of?ce
personnel knew that there were challenges affecting York?s student attendance and
enrollment data in IMPACT. Third, the did not appreciate the role that DOC plays
in how York captures student attendance and enrollment.

Nonetheless, the OTC obtained DOC booking and release information of York
students and compared it to CPS IMPACT data (See CAR Nos. 15, 2528, and Attachments

 

 

 

 

 

 

12, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33). The OIG then merged the data together to create Attachment
33. This. attachment was the key comparison document used by the 016 to find that Dr.
Sims falsified student attendance and enrollment data. Critically, the found that
attachment 33 showed 351 instances during the 2015?2016 school year where York
students were marked present for class, but had already been released by DOC (See OIG
Report pp. 40-41, Attachment 33).

This author reviewed the data contained in 016 Attachment 33 and created a chart
to examine its accuracy and validity. In total, the identified 44 York students as
having been released by DOC but still marked ?present? by York staff. This author?s
chart (Board Attachment 3 in the binder) shows the following:

1) The yellow highlighted area is the 016?s analysis of 44 students who were
allegedly present? at York when, in fact, DOC had already released them
(taken from OIG Attachment 33);

2) The blue highlighted area is DOC information identifying the detainee, his or
her date of birth and booking and release dates (taken from OIG Attachment
and

3) The last three columns, which are printed in red and purple font, present data
obtained from York school records (See 44 student records).

A review of the data revealed the following:

A. The 016 found that York falsified data on two (2) students who, fact, were never
enrolled at Yo .
and Detainee detainee numbe Although the OIG
concluded that 82 student attendance days were falsified, the OTC: based its
findings on the wrong persons.

   
 

 

B. The 016 found that York falsified data on two (2) students who left York but the
OIG neglected to see that those two students had been re-incarcerated DOC
and re-enroll Detainee detainee numbe

but re-booked into DOC on

detainee number

rerbooked into DOC on Although the concluded that 57

student attendance days were falsified, the 016?s findings failed to account for the

fact that the students were re~booked by DOC and re?e'nrolled at York.

   
 
 

 
 

 

C. The found that York falsified data on seven (7) students, but York clerks
marked those students ?present" in IMPACT so that they coudlnter their final
grades (See Detainee final grade entered on I

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     
 

  
 

and Detainee
- final grade entered The 016 concluded that
65 student attendance days were falsrf1ed when, in act the York clerks merely
marked the students ?pr esent" to enter their final grades.

Detainee

   

D. The 016 found that York falsified data on one (1) student, but the York clerks
marked the student ?present? in IMPACT so that they could accomplish the
administrative task to allow the aduate from York (See Detainee

., graduated 

      

E. The OIG found that York falsi?ed data on two (2) students who were taking classes
on?line (See Detainees The 016 ignored that
York offers on?ljne courses both on and off?campus. It is dif?cult therefore to
know whether the students were participating off?campus

 

Of the 44: students identified by the 01G 14 of them did not receive an credit

   
      

. In fact, York clerks marked

eleted I inanyu of these student attendance entries to note a correction. Thus

the 016 found more than 100 student attendance falsification on students that
never received credit during the suspect time period.

 

More than 60% of the data presented by the DIS as falsi?ed was clearly not
falsi?ed. The 01G own errors affecting more than 60% of the OlG?s data - confirm
how easily data errors occur.

 

 

 

 

D. The OIG Found that Dr. Sims and her Administration Threatened Teachers to
Give Credit to Students. The Weight of the Evidence Does Not Support the
Conclusion.

1. The Case of Student Stanley Bobo

The OIG sensationalizes the tragic case of student Stanley Bobo, who was
murdered on October 23, 2014. The 016 contends that the Stanley Bobo case shows that
Dr. Sims improperly pressured teachers to issue credits to students. The 
conclusions are not a fair reading of the evidence.

Stanley Bobo was enrolled in York on September 9, 2014. Bobo was released from
DOC on October 16, 2014. As the 016 emphasizes, the York data shows that Bobo was
not disenrolled from York until October 23, 2014, seven days after his release from DOC.
Further, IMPACT data was entered showing that York knew Bobo was discharged from
DOC by at least October 20, 2014, but still marked him as ?present? for an additional
three days. Bobo?s course credit was not entered until October 24, 2014, the day after he
was murdered. Additionally, records show that Bobo received a in Spanish II, a
course he never took. The OIG interviewed Bobo?s three teachers (Anderson, Foley and
Pierre) and reviewed emails between Dr. Sims and Anderson and Foley.73

The interviews of York clerks show that student Stanley-Bobo was intentionally
kept on the attendance rolls at York so that his foreign language grade could be entered
into IMPACT. In fact, the York clerks stated that it was their understanding and practice
that leaving the student marked as ?present? in IMPACT was the only way to enter a
grade.74 Thus, rather than a falsification scheme, as presented by the OIG, Bobo?s data
re?ects a clerical practice to permit an earned grade to be entered into IMPACT.

Next, according to the OTC, two of Bobo?s teachers Anderson and Foley were
?pressured? by Dr. Sims to give Stanley Bobo credit that he did not deserve. However,
the emails between Dr. Sims and these two teachers do not support the 016?s conclusion.
The emails provide the following details:

 

7'3 See OIG Report pp. 6?14; CAR Nos. 2, 9, and 23; Attachments 6, 7, and 27)
74 See Interviews of Will Walker, Latasha Miller and Andrea Miller.

 

 

. 33 ?rag 

 

 

 

 

 

1)

On October 25, 2014, Dr. Sims emails teachers Anderson and Foley, with copies

. to then York clerks Gizelle Vernon and Will Walker. Dr. Sims states:

2)

3)

4.)

6)

7)

Mr. Anderson and Mr. Foley,

Obviously you all have heard that Stanley Bobo was fatally shot on
Thursday, Oct. 23rd (6 days after he was discharged from DOC). It is my
understanding that Stanley enrolled at York during the Summer Cycle
but was not eligible to receive credit. According to the records Stanley
returned for Cycle 1 and was scheduled for 3 classes, but only received
a grade for one class. Is there any particular reason that Stanley did not
get a grade in your classes despite the fact that he met the enrollment
requirement? Please advise. 

Anderson emailed Dr. Sims on October 26, 2014, asserting that he did not even
know that Stanley Bobo was still enrolled in his class because Bobo?s
attendance was so poor and he did not show up after midterms.

Dr. Sims emailed back that same day, thanking Anderson for this information
and indicating that Dr. Sims would check with York clerk Gizelle Vernon about
Bobo?s attendance.

Later that same day, York clerk Gizelle Vernon emailed Dr. Sims as to what her
records showed regarding Stanley Bobo?s attendance. The clerk?s records
showed that Bobo was in attendance in class for several days in September and
October 2014.

On October 27, 2014, Dr. Sims relayed the York clerk?s student attendance
records to teacher Anderson and asked him to double?check his attendance
records.

That same day, Anderson emailed Dr. Sims stating, didn?t see Stanley in my
classroom after October 3rd according to my records."

On October 28, 2014, teacher Foley emailed Dr. Sims con?rming that his
records, similar to teacher Anderson?s records, did not show Bobo attending
Foley?s class after October 211d. Foley indicated that he felt uncomfortable
giving a grade to a student that had missed so much class, but if he had to give
a grade he would give Bobo an Foley?s email then goes on to other
subjects, such as volunteering his lunch period to show movies to other
students and getting a recommendation letter from Dr. Sims for a Mr. Hall.

 

 

 

 

34 ?iage

 

8) On October 29, 2014, Dr. Sims emails teachers Foley and Anderson, and-Dr.
Sims copies York clerk Gizelle Vernon and assistant principals James Jones and
Shone Johnson. Dr. Sims email states:

All,

Thank you for clarifying my understanding of why Stanley Bobo only
received one grade, despite the fact that he was scheduled for three
classes.

Given our structure, it is possible for a student to attend class in the
morning and refuse in the afternoon (or vice versa). It is also plausible
for students to refuse school for the entire day or refuse to remain in
class for the duration of the instructional blocks. Such situations are and
would be considered voluntary absences, unlike the times when 
students are remanded to disciplinary segregation, go to
court/ dispensary, or are unable to attend class due to cancellations
beyond their control.

Classroom teachers are the keeper of the record and the signatory
officials on all grades issued. Although the Lead Teacher provides a list
of students who meet the enrollment eligibility requirements, it is your
documentation that justifies grades earned and issued. Please note that
under no circumstances do I or members of my
Administrative/ Leadership Team politic passing grades; However, if
students meet the minimal enrollment requirements as previously
established, then he she must receive the grade earned (regai dless if the
grade is an A or F).

I realize that it is not comfortable for teachers to enter Fs as the final
grade. Unfortunately, in Mr. Bobo's case the grade is a [moot] point, but
going forward note that grades can be justified. It is the absence of a
grade (when one is due) that raises all sorts of questions and ?ags.

So that we are all on one accord regarding the issuance of grades, 1 will
be certain to reiterate the protocol with the rest of the staff.

(See October 2014 emails between Dr. Sims and Anderson and Foley, See also OIG
Attachments 6 and 7). -

A fair reading of these emails does not demonstrate any undue pressure to issue
an undeserved grade to Bobo. Rather, the emails show that Dr. Sims is asking teachers
Anderson and Foley as to why a grade was not entered for Bobo when it appeared that

 

 

as": r2 a a

 

 

 

 

he had suf?cient attendance to deserve a grade, according to student attendance records
that Dr. Sims received from York clerk Gizelle Vernon. When Anderson and Foley
reiterated that their records showed that Bobo had insufficient attendance, Dr. Sims
deferred to the teachers? records. Dr. Sims? October 29, 2014 email is enlightening from
several different perspectives. It shows that: .

1. Dr. Sims acknowledged that student attendance data kept by the York clerks
may differ from the attendance information kept by" teachers;

2. In such situations, it would be the teacher?s attendance data that controlled.
The email provides strong words supporting the power of the teacher to enter
grades without pressure from anyone; and

3. Dr. Sims points out that if student attendance is adequate to meet minimal
enrollment guidelines, then a teacher must enter a grade, even if it is a 

Notably, Foley?s October 28, 2014 email does not demonstrate that he is being pressured
at all, as his email delves into unrelated issues, such as reference letters and volunteering
his time.

The 016?s interview of Eddie Pierre, Bobo?s third teacher, supports Dr. Sims"
actions. Pierre tells the OIG, ?Sims never spoke with me about issuing a credit to Bobo.
Pierre decided on his own to issue the credit.? (01G Report p. 14). In fact, Pierre further
stated that decided to give Bobo a in French class. Bobo tried hard in class and was
close to finishing his degree. Bobo loved French and was learning to speak French very
well.? (CAR No. 23).

The makes much of the fact that Bobo received a grade for Spanish When Bobo
actually was studying French. Teacher Pierre, however, con?rmed that it was a common
error by the York programmer to print out a schedule with students taking Spanish class
when, in fact, they were taking French. This happened often and may have been
attributable to the fact that only Spanish is taught in Division XI. Pierre confirmed that
he merely crosses out Spanish and writes in French for his students. He may have
forgotten to do so for Bobo (CAR No. 23).

36] t3 ag em

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Contrary to the Finding, the Vast Maioritv of Teachers have Never
Been ?Pressured" to issue a Credit to a Student.

 

The OIG found that ?numerous teachers" stated that Dr. Sims pressured them to
issue credits over their objections when the students had not spent sufficient time in the
classroom. When reviewing the evidence, however, only a few teachers actually
stated they were pressured by Dr. Sims or her administrators. They are:

 

Anderson stated that Dr. Sims threatened to terminate him if he did not issue a
credit to Bobo. (01G Report p. 6). Not only was Anderson not terminated when
he did not issue a credit to Bobo, but the email exchange set forth above shows no
undue pressure. Anderson?s claim that other teachers were threatened by Dr. Sims
is hearsay and provides no specifics.

Burger did not state that she was pressured by Dr. Sims to issue an undeserved
credit to a student. Rather, Burger stated that Dr. Sims explicitly told her and other
teachers that their teaching positions would be eliminated if they failed to comply
with York policies and practices. (OIG Report p. 8).

Foley specifically stated that he was never threatened by Dr. Sims to issue a credit
to a student Report p. 12). Foley?s statement that other teachers were
threatened by Dr. Sims is hearsay and does not provide any specifics.

Pierre stated that he was never threatened by Dr. Sims to issue a credit (OIG Report

 

p. 14).

Boggs never directly stated that he was threatened by Dr. Sims to issue a credit.
Rather, Boggs stated that on his own volition he issued a credit to a student after
watching nine (9) hours of the Cosmos series by Neil de Grasse Tyson (OIG Report

p. 18).

stated that he was never threatened by Dr. Sims to issue a credit. 
surmised that other teachers may feel threatened by Dr. Sims. view
constitutes Speculation without any specifics (OIG Report p. 19).

Veljkovic stated that she has never been instructed by Dr. Sims to issue credits to
late?enrolling students, but she feels that other administrators have made it clear
that those are her initiatives (OIG Report p. 19). Veljkovic does not say who the
other administrators are, what they said or when they said it.

Mathen stated that she was pressured by a lead teacher to issue credits to students
that had been taught by another teacher who was out on a
Maloney). She refused (OIG Report p. 21).

 

 

.. 37' age

 

 

 

Cieslilc stated that Dr. Sims has encouraged him to issue credits to students when
he does not believe they have spent enough time in the classroom, but she has
never forced him to issue credits (01G Report p. 22).

Campoverde did not state that Dr. Sims pressured her to issue undeserved credit
to a student. Rather, Campoverde merely stated that Dr. Sims bullied her to issue
an to a failing student (016 Report p. 23).

Other individuals interviewed by the 016 all indicated that neither Dr. Sims nor 
the York administration ever bullied them to issue a credit to a student that was
not deserved (See hiterviews of Uppstad and Davis, CAR Nos. 13 and 18).

Thus, at the end of the 016?s investigation, only three teachers (Anderson, Mathen
and Cieslik) said they were pressured by Dr. Sims or her administration to issue a credit
to a student that did not deserve it. Three other teachers (Foley, and VeljkolicJ
speculated that that Dr. Sims may have pressured others to enter undeserved credits to
students. These narratives hardly amount to ?numerous" teachers.

This author interviewed 26 teachers who the DIS did not interview.
Overwhelmingly, nearly all the teachers stated that Dr. Sims or her administration never
pressured them to issue a credit to a student that did not deserve it (See Interview Notes).
Four teachers, however, stated some undue pressure was exerted by the York
administration. They are:

Teacher Javier Sandoval stated that he felt pressured by assistant principal Shone
Johnson in January 2016, to issue a credit to a student that he did not believe
deserved it. Johnson pressured Sandoval to review the make-up work of the
student to see if it was sufficient to deserve a credit. Ultimately, Sandoval issued
a credit to the student;

Teacher John Maloney confirmed the statement by Mathen that she was pressured
to issue credits to Maloney?s students While he was on a

 

Teacher Doris Agbefe felt that she was pressured but not forced to issue credits to
students ,5 and

Teacher John Macis stated that he had been pressured by the administration to
issue credits to students whose attendance was low.

It is difficult to assess whether any of the ?pressure? described above was
inappropriate. Undoubtedly, principals push teachers to document their efforts in
the student and parents when a student is failing. Additionally, principals

 

 

a 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

should pressure teachers to give make?up Work to students that miss class for excused
reasons. 

This author is also unsure whether it was improper for the York administratio to
require Mathen to issue credits to Maloney?s students when Logically, the students should receive credit for completed work despite a teacher?s
absence. In most CPS schools, some certified individual must enter the grades of students

when the teacher takes a leave of absence. This incident appears similar.

 
 
   

in sum, more than 80% of the teachers and staff interviewed stated that no such
improper pressure was exerted by Dr. Sims to issue undeserved credits.75 To avoid any
misunderstanding in the future, York administration should clarify the protocols for
issuing credits so that no teacher feels unduly pressured. In that regard, Dr. Sims?
October 29, 2014 email provides a useful clari?cation.

3. The 01G Found that the York Administration Encourages Teachers to
Under-Report Safety Issues.

Nearly every teacher interviewed by this author stated that a ?threat? by a student
at York is a rare event. Many teachers stated that they had never been ?threatened? in
which they feared for their bodily safety or felt sexually compromised. Likewise, every
educational expert that had entered York from the Network or Central Office had never
seen a student ?threaten? anyone (see York personnel, staff and teachers interviewed, and
Central Office personnel interviewed). Thus, the assertion by the OIG that ?many" York
teachers complained of being threatened at York lacks a basis in fact.

Nonetheless, ?threats? have taken place. Universally, teachers stated that when a
threat did occur, they would immediately contact the DOC guard and have the student
removed from the classroom. Oftentimes, DOC would remove the student for a few days
and the student would not return to class. The teacher would then notify the York lead
teacher and administrator in writing of the event. These anecdotal notes would be placed
in the student?s file.76 DOC officers would occasionally want the teacher to provide them
with information so that DOC may issue an infraction to the student.

Only one teacher, Doris Agbefe assigned to Division IX, felt unsafe in her work
environment. She also expressed concern that she was receiving contradictory advice
from DOC and York administrators as to what she should do if a ?threat? did take place.77

 

7?5 39 total interviews were conducted by York teachers and staff by this author and the 016. Of
those 39 interviews only seven (7) stated that Dr. Sims or her administration pressured them to
issue an undeserved credit to a student (32 39 

76 See Anecdotal student safety reports.

77 See Doris Agbefe interview.

 

 

39.1 r- a as

 

 

The 016 asserted that safety issues are being under?reported in Verify and that
Dr. Sims pressured teachers not to report such safety concerns (OIG Report p. 45). None
of the 26 teachers interviewed by this author expressed the View that Dr. Sims and her
administration encouraged them to under?report safety concerns. Notably, only five
teachers interviewed by the OTC currently work at York.

The OIG Report also states that former teacher Julie Campoverde ?requested to
speak with the OIG a second time because of escalating safety issues at York? Report
at 23). Campoverde referred to a ?riot" in the Jail involving a York student. Campoverde
also reported ?one of the superintendents at the Jail recently left and commented that
incidents at the jail had gotten out of hand such that there were legitimate safety concerns
for those working inside the Jail.? The OIG Report appears to accept this assertion as fact,
even though Campoverde does not identify the former superintendent, the Report
does not reveal that the OIG contacted the alleged source of the comment and the OTC
Report contains no data to support the unattributed and unconfirmed assertion. The
DOC is responsible for providing a safe environment, and there is nothing in the 
Report to support an allegation that the DOC has failed to do so.

The is correct that the York administration has entered on average ten (10)
Verify reports each year for the past several years. This is below average for a typical
high school within CPS. It is, of course, possible that York has less safety issues because
the DOC takes substantial safety precautions that are not present in other school settings.
Some of these safety precautions include no cell phones, no outside object may be brought
into class by a student, DOC guards posted near classrooms, cameras inside every
classroom and DOC restricts attendance by students who have engaged in misconduct,
to name a few. It is also possible that the York administration believes that an incident
report in Verify is not necessary since the incident is handled by DOC. The York staff
should receive additional training as to the proper use of Verify to categorize all-incidents
involving threats.

4. The Found that the York Administration Enrolls ?Numerous" Students
Beyond Their 22Ild Birthday;

The 016 found that 52 students were improperly enrolled at York since they were
22 year-olds (See 016 Report p. 38, and Attachment 34). Of the 52 students highlighted
by the only 11 were 22 years old on their first day of enrollment. As noted by the
students with EPS can be enrolled up until their 221-"d birthday. Thus, it is not clear,
and the OIG does not disclose, which of the 52 students had lEPs. Moreover, most of the
11 students enrolled after their 22nd birthday were only enrolled in York for a few days
(See Attachment 34). If York mistakenly provides educational services to persons who
are ineligible because they have aged out of the system, there is reason to tighten the
screening process, but there is no basis for inferring fraud.

 

i0 1 is 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Recommendations
This author reports the following:

First, there is not suf?cient evidence in the 016 report to warrant disciplinary
action against Dr. Sims. Dr. Sims is a contract principal who possesses legally protected
rights to her position Dr Sims is entitled to an ISBE administrative hearing before an
independent hearing officer, pursuant to Section 34? 85 of the Illinois School Code, 105
5/34? 85. The OlG?s evidence does not support a showing that Dr. Sims engaged in
irremediable misconduct or materially breached her principal contract. To the contrary,
the weight of the evidence indicates that Dr. Sims properly performed her duties under
difficult conditions. While discipline is not recommended, this author does recommend
additional training for Dr. Sims and her staff on data entry and procedural issues.

Second, the OIG recommends that student attendance practices be altered at York
so that each teacher enter student attendance in IMPACT per period. This author does
not believe the 016?s recommendation takes into consideration the unique environment
of York. Rather, this author recommends, similar to David Domenici back in 2012, that:
a data sharing program be instituted between DOC and York so that student
enrollment data and attendance data may be shared more quickly and accurately
between the two entities; regular and uniform meetings take place between DOC and
York to ensure open communication; data entry be altered substantially to
take into consideration York?s unique cycle and enrollment situation; and York clerks
should receive additional training to properly input data.

Third, the 016 recommends that cycles be lengthened beyond 40 days to ensure
students receive sufficient classroom instruction. This author would defer to senior
educational experts to evaluate whether the York cycles are sufficiently long.

Fourth, the OIG recommends that York abandon its course structure of teaching
multiple subjects during the same class. This author would defer to senior educational

experts to evaluate whether teaching multiple subjects in the same class is appropriate at
York.

Fifth, the OTC recommends that the York administration encourage staff to report
dangerous incidents. The evidence this author obtained, contrary to the 016, shows
overwhelmingly that York staff do report dangerous incidents. The 016 is correct,
however, that the York staff reports dangerous incidents to DOC, and to others at York,
but they do not regularly input such incidents in Verify. This author recommends that
additional. training take place so that the York staff enters all such incidents in Verify.