So, we've been running down the legitimacy of a comment made by a DOE rep to the state board of education last week. Here's what was said:
mms://DOEmedia.doe.k12.de.us/SBE4-15-13b/4-18-13part2.mp3 At 36:42 a DOE speaker states:“and we sent an email to all families addressing a letter that was …uh…posted by the board president of Pencader last week.”
Today the waters get murkier. See the email below where DOE explains how they generated their list of recipients.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kepner Alison
To: Elizabeth Scheinberg
Sent: Mon, Apr 22, 2013 8:12 am
Subject: RE: Information Request
We generated a list from contact info we had in e-school and sent it to all those families.From: Elizabeth Scheinberg
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:55 AM
To: Kepner Alison
Subject: Re: Information RequestAlison,
Could you clarify something for me? I have received communications from Pencader parents who state that the following letter was not sent to the Pencader parents in general but only to those who initiated directcontact the department. The audio certainly makes it sound as if DOE was asserting the letter went to the elist that received the school's memo prompting the DOE reponse.
Could you please clarify who received this: All parents on the elist or just those who contacted the department directly, or an entirely other subgroup that was identified by the department.
Thank You
So, if the state pulled e-school data to generate its list of recipients - why do parents insist they never received the email? Is eschool faulty? Whereas phone numbers are unreliable due to transience and throwaway cells, email addresses don't tend to change frequently. AND THE SPEAKER CLEARLY SAID "ALL" which was not the case at ALL as obviously there are some families whose email address is not in eschool. Insane.
I have requested through the department PIO that DOE confirm that all Pencader families have email listings recorded in eschool and that if any are found to be incomplete that the department inform the SBE that the statement was not accurate.
No comments: