Thursday, January 6, 2011


A reader reminded me of the following from December 19, 2009.  Presas-Garcia and Escobedo were key defenders of Springson on this issue because Escobedo needed to protect his boss's wife - Kathleen Jimenez.  Also active participants in the cover-up to protect Springston and Jimenez, Rick Zayas,. Ruben Cortez, Minerva Peña, Rolando Aguilar and Joe Colunga.  As the end shows, BISD was ordered to fix the problem or pay the cost of having the TEA fix the problem.  The board covered everything up and no disciplinary action was taken against Kathleen Jimenez.  The original complaint was based on Rendon's incompetence which Kathleen Jimenez simply sought to keep in place.


Here are some excerpts from the pending TEA complaint. The entire Board has been given a copy of the complaint with exhibits. You watch how they cover for Springston tonight. You watch how they scramble to explain away any findings by the TEA after they crown the new jester of the BISD Board, Srpingston. I can only use excerpts because of privacy issues.

“In the initial findings against BISD the TEA found BISD fails to follow parents valid requests. It would seem Mr. Springston learned nothing from this finding and now outright refuses to cooperate with me in my efforts to file a formal personnel complaint against him.”
“Based on the two attached documents, I do not believe the TEA can rely on any information BISD is providing to the TEA.

The documents show that during the second six week period my son in some cases either received a passing grade or near passing grade. His attached attendance sheet shows he missed nearly every day of the second six week period. This has to be a falsification of a government record.

This is important because after BISD received notice of this complaint I met with the principle and Dr. Lee Garcia. Based on the recommendations of the pediatric psychiatrist that my son be in a more structured classroom he was offered the opportunity to receive his instruction in a classroom of 10 or fewer students. Kathleen Jimenez who called for the meeting failed to show. She then rejected the settlement claiming my son was passing his courses. I knew the grades could not be accurate because for example he had not turned in his science project, although it remains sitting on his work station at home. Falsification of grades is a serious matter especially when it is used as a basis to deny a special needs child additional needed services.

This time the pediatric psychiatrist, see attached, stated my son needed to be homebound. I met again in another ARD with BISD. To my amazement Kathleen Jimenez remained convinced, even after the falsification of the grades was pointed out to her that my son should just go right back to a regular classroom. After I rejected this option, she then suggested he receive his instruction in the Behavior Intervention classroom. Given the fact the original complaint outlined two separate examples of abuse by the Behavior Intervention instructors, this recommendation was almost too bizarre to accept as serious, but it was.

My son now receives one on one instruction in a quiet setting away from the BISD campus. He is struggling to comprehend simple concepts such as bayonet. If in a one on one setting he struggles to understand simple terms, it is not then possible any teacher was telling the truth about what he was and was not learning in the regular classroom.

Such as BISD refused to conduct the necessary testing for ADHD, I am convinced it has never done the proper testing of my son for other learning disabilities. While I should have noticed during the ARD meeting nothing was noted about dealing with the ADHD, it remains, BISD did not properly prepare. They are the experts.

Further as the attached e-mail shows, I asked on November 20, 2009, for Mr. Springston and the Board to provide me the guidelines to file a complaint against Mr. Springston for his failure to properly oversee Special Services. As of this date, December 15, 2009, Mr. Springston has refused my request. The same can be said for the entire Board.”

Posted by BobbyWC at 2:05 PM 5 comments

This morning I am reading a notice from the TEA in regards to the last findings I secured against BISD for its failures related to a specific child. here is what they found.

"The LEA'S improvement plan requires revision based on the discrepancy cited." They have been told that if they continue to refuse to comply they will be charged the cost of fixing the problem.

The original citation was caused by the neglect of Hector Gonzales, it is now squarely owned by Springston. The Board will not take any action. In fact they will reward Springston.

The documents which show that BISD has falisified records related to this child are being forwarded today now that we know the complaint remains open. Will the BISD Board ignore Springston's mismanagement of special services? You betcha and this is why we know Gonzales was fired for political reasons and not for his failures related to special services.


Stan said...

Interesting post. i wish you'd find a better way to differentiate long quotes because after a while you stopped putting quote marks after a couple of paragraphs.In most publications extended quotes are indented rather than marked with quotation marks. Most text editors provide indent tools to do this. it would improve readability.

This comment doesn't need publication, of course.

Anonymous said...

Bobby, did Longoria put her neck on the line for saying that the insurance consultant did not look out for the best interests of the district, employees or taxpayers?

Anonymous said...

Saavedra's "one body" comments sound like something from a previous board member.

Anonymous said...

I think they're wanting a new insurance consultant because they want a new insurance company. How close to a conspiracy might this be?

Anonymous said...

Looks like Cata cut off Pat before he could debunk the reasoning about employee complaints about the insurance company.

Anonymous said...

Bobby, did they violate the procedure in voting to fire the consultant by using votes from non-prevailing voting members on the previous contract vote?

Anonymous said...

They want to choose a consultant that they can control not a professional one. Or they would like it even better if the board was allowed to choose the company. What they don't seem to realize is that they can not make recommendations only the administration can do that. They only have the ability to vote for or against a recommenation. The only power they have is to choose an attorney and hire and fire the superintendent. The rest must come from the administration.

BobbyWC said...

Sorry about publishing through your comment stan - I will try and double indent


bobby WC