Explore more of the publications in our portfolio here. Explore more of our portfolio.

Top Ad

Sign up for the Daily North Shore Email

Comments

  1. Buried in the comments in the original article Steve Haugh uncovered something very disturbing about one of the foundational premises of that article, and that premise has subsequently gotten a lot of mileage. The title of this thread/article is more appropriate to examine this further (in an easy-to-find place). Here is the issue:

    It appears that there is no proof that Dr. Holland’s HECG website was “scrubbed” on or around the interviewing process…..and that there is a strong appearance of deceit on the part of Jennifer Neubauer.

    As Steve points out, ”Your entire basis for that claim appears to be the FILE ARCHIVED ON MAY 16, 2015 note. which I can only assume was doctored in order to make your claims more sensational.”

    Sridhar Krishnaswamy followed Steve’s post with this:
    ————
    This is interesting information. It appears that the site was down at least as early as May 19th, 2015 (check:http://web.archive.org/web/20130225083738/http://www.hollanded.com/academic-tracking which shows the same ‘We are Down for Maintenance’ message) . I, too, am unable to see that the site was live anytime after December 2014. ….. This does put a different spin on things.

    At this point, it is really incumbent on the original poster (Mrs. Jennifer Neubauer) to show that the site was alive on May 16th as indicated in her original post.
    ———–

    The above commentary is based on footnote 1 in Jennifer’s letter to the BOE:
    “[1] FILE ARCHIVED ON 21:54:40 May 16, 2015 AND RETRIEVED FROM THE INTERNET ARCHIVE ON 1:52:54 May 19, 2015. JAVASCRIPT APPENDED BY WAYBACK MACHINE, COPYRIGHT INTERNET ARCHIVE. ALL OTHER CONTENT MAY ALSO BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT (17 U.S.C. SECTION 108(a)(3)).”

    This comes directly (presumably as a direct copy-paste) from the web archives on the “WayBack Machine” https://archive.org/web/

    Here is how to view these comments which are not visible in your web browser, but are embedded in the HTML code of the web page – the behind-the-scenes building blocks that tell your browser (Internet Explorer, Chrome, Safari, etc) what to display in a pretty/readable way: In your browser Right Click – Inspect Element (or View Source if that is an option on your browser). You can also view the info by hovering over the date selector near the top right of the archived page (easier).

    “FILE ARCHIVED ON 21:54:40 May 16, 2015” reflects the date the WayBack Machine’s robots copied the page for archiving.
    “RETRIEVED FROM THE INTERNET ARCHIVE ON 1:52:54 May 19, 2015” reflects the date the user (assume Neubauer) accessed the archive in their research.

    Here is the most recent archived date stamp for every page on the HECG website that I can find for “active” pages:
    http://www.hollanded.com – FILE ARCHIVED ON 16:37:58 Dec 19, 2014 (most recent)
    /about-us – 21:10:49 May 29, 2013
    /healthy-living – not archived
    /services – 18:34:20 May 30, 2013
    /contact – 8:35:41 Feb 25, 2013
    /resources-readings – 5:50:26 Mar 1, 2013
    /academic-tracking – 8:37:38 Feb 25, 2013
    /category/blog – not archived
    /category – not archived
    /2013/01 – not archived
    /2013 – not archived
    /images – not archived
    /wp-content – not archived (ditto for sub-directories) – this is where content for the site is stored

    Here is the earliest date for every “We are Down for Maintenance” page in the archive:
    http://www.hollanded.com – 2:17:45 May 26, 2015
    /about-us – not archived
    /healthy-living – not archived
    /services – not archived
    /contact – not archived
    /resources-readings – not archived
    /academic-tracking – 2:05:45 May 19, 2015
    /category/blog – 1:20:47 May 19, 2015 (earliest – note that this is before Jennifer accessed the archive)
    /category – not archived
    /2013/01 – 1:51:49 May 19, 2015
    /2013 – not archived
    /images – not archived
    /wp-content – not archived (ditto for sub-directories)

    This the exhaustive search that Sridhar most likely did…..and it confirms his observation and challenge to Jennifer.

    • The assertion that the website was “scrubbed” as part of a cover-up is also preposterous for another, far simpler reason. If a person’s goal really IS to hide content from web crawlers like the Wayback Machine, it’s simply accomplished by adding a file called ROBOTS.TXT to the site’s host directory. You configure it to disallow robot compilers to archive content, at which point no further data is compiled, and the Wayback Machine returns an error message saying the site cannot be accessed due to the site’s robots.txt configuration (so even previously-compiled data is no longer shared.) As a researcher, believe me when I say I have firsthand experience with this!

      I have to wonder why all of these dangerous co-conspirators like Dr. Holland and Dr. Simeck and those shadowy ACLU attorneys didn’t do a better job in crafting their nefarious plan. Since so much of the character assassination of Dr. Holland springs from insinuations about her ‘deceitful’ online behavior, and (projecting from that), her “shame” for sharing educational resources which are actually quite mainstream in the educational field (abeit apparently dangerously Trotskyite for the good citizens of Lake Forest), I have to ask: what else you got?

      • Steve – you make it seem like everyone knows about the ‘robots.txt’ file, which is a pretty strong assumption.

        Do you honestly believe that someone with solely four years experience as an Assistant Principal for Instruction is qualified to lead a high school such as Lake Forest? If you say “yes”, you are showing your bias.

  2. Someone needs to point out the obvious here….the emperor has no clothes: The anger of the angry mob is based almost entirely on mere assumptions…..and it is the grouping together of those assumptions that give the appearance of a conspiracy.

    Do we want to be a mob? Or conspiracy theorists? I can’t speak for anyone else, but that does not seem to me like what we aspire to as a community. Heck, we all know each other! If not personally, then by one degree of separation. Michael Rourke was a Den Chief in my Cub Scout den (and his Dad a fellow leader). My daughter runs cross country with Dr. Simeck’s so I’ve seen him out and about in our community lots of times (but shame on me, I never even introduced myself to him).

    While it took a lot of courage to post the petition and stand up and deliver the message (bravo Michael!), it struck me as almost humorous that this article got titled “Why Was Record Scrubbed?” when the basis for the article was entirely about the petition and no question like that was even asked in the article. The petition after all was based on an assumption (and rumor) that Dr. Holland was being brought in to dismantle academic tracking (or would hinder the academic rigor of LFHS on her own)…..and that assumption (#1) was soundly debunked in an email message from Dr. Simeck (before this OpEd was posted).

    Assumption #2 is that the 7am Tuesday board meeting was to secretly ramrod the process. That has also been debunked. It was due to the availability of BOE members. After all, we have delegated the process to them by voting them in and the meeting was primarily for them (and not primarily for the general public).

    Assumption #3 is that the Leadership will not listen. That has been debunked, as evidenced by the hiring process being delayed. (And, I am not implying that this is a one-time fix for this criticism).

    Assumption #4 is that Dr. Holland took down her online footprint to hide her incendiary/radical views. I too am very interested to know the reason/s and whose idea it was, and I too think its bad optics. But, lots of people appear to have made some major leaps on this assumption to form conclusions about her character, wisdom, leadership, etc. What does that say about these folks’ character and wisdom? What if her decision was based on closing her consulting group so she could focus on the task of being a new Principal…..and/or maybe business/legal conflicts of interest (perceived or real) in the new position/s she is pursuing?

    • There is a clear continuum between her core beliefs that were scrubbed from her web site, to the concerns for the tracking policy at our high school. There is no need for conspiratorial thinking. Allow me to connect the dots for you Dave. Here’s what we know.

      1. Her core beliefs include “White Privilege” and “Whiteness as Property”.
      2. As a result of those beliefs she sees tracking programs as racist like the Jim Crow laws and wants to end them.
      3. She put in place a “Racial Equity” program that may or may not have neutralized tracking programs at OPRFHS. We don’t know because her power point presentation about racial equity on her web site was scrubbed.
      4. Simeck has been dismantling the tracking programs in the middle school, so we know he leans this way despite his public statements.
      5. Simeck chose her even though her experience at principal is nil.

      She has an axe to grind -> she blames tracking -> she wants to end tracking -> Simeck is already ending tracking in one school -> Simeck hires a marginally qualified anti-tracking person for high school principal

      There are no gaps at all in this line of thinking. The community has very good reasons to believe tracking is under assault, and that our school could be exposed to a whole host of policies which are not in line with our educational priorities or values.

      … and “no”. I’ll pass on the private meeting thank you very much. I find nothing limiting about this format. I like to operate in the harsh light of public scrutiny. Don’t you?

      • “Simeck has been dismantling the tracking programs in the middle school”

        I am genuinely curious about this as I have heard/seen nothing on this. Do you have details?

        I have an upcoming meeting to discuss this very thing as one of my children’s math teacher is proposing that we move to a higher track next year. I heard a rumor that Quest (the highest track) was going away and I have also heard it is just changing names. I am also well aware of the extensive support available to the students who need extra help (the “bottom” track)….and how they can fluidly move in and out of that as needed (all without the “short bus” stigma). I also heard that now HS teachers come over for 8th graders taking HS math rather than having the student use their time to travel as they had to in the past.
        This all sounds very supportive of the highest achieving students as well….as for those with the least academic chops. My kids will be out of DPM in a few years, but do other parents with younger kids have concrete cause for concern?

        • Not a lot has been put out – and that is part of the problem. There is no longer Quest Math – classes are more specific to the material covered. Nothing has been stated regarding how Quest English is disappearing.

          What seems to have disappeared is the 3rd/4th “Explore” program – supposedly this will be handled by “push in” to the regular classroom. Truly a loss for the qualified students.

    • Regarding Assumption #2, it was my understanding this subject was supposed to be covered during the standard June meeting and was instead moved up – that is probably where the “ram-rodding” comments are coming from. The fact that the meeting was announced on a holiday weekend for 7am the first day after did not help. Even if not intended, it has the appearance of shenanigans.

    • I am not a tech person, but a little research shows the following that supports both Michael’s letter and my own researched letters:
      According to Wikipedia on the Wayback Macine:
      “Since 1996, they have been archiving cached pages of web sites onto their large cluster of Linux nodes. They revisit sites every few weeks or months and archive a new version IF THE CONTENT HAS CHANGED [emphasis added]. The intent is to capture and archive content that would otherwise be lost WHENEVER A SITE IS CHANGED OR CLOSED DOWN [emphasis supplied] Their grand vision is to archive the entire Internet.[3]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayback_Machine#Limitations_of_utility
      I guess we can investigate whether Wikipedia’s contributors know what they’re talking about, but even a non-tech person like myself can understand the Wayback Machine doesn’t snap unchanged web pages just for the heck of it. Even a non-tech person like myself understands there must be some trigger—a change or a shutdown–that causes Wayback to take a snap of a page. Google cached pages (which other contributors to DNS have used) seem to run along those same lines.

      Moreover I am informed by someone who has made a living in software that the robots.txt is merely a suggestion that the manual or automatic web crawler not go into certain directories. I’m informed that, while most web crawlers respect that, adding the robots.txt file does not prevent crawling into those directories. So whether or not she used the robots.txt file, manual or web crawlers could disregard and find the page. A tech layman would likely believe that “taking down” a site is all you need to hide it, in any event. So the discussion of the robots.txt file issue is of no moment. BTW, Wayback respects robots.txt file according to the Wikipedia. Thus, the most that can be said is that when she took the site down in May 2015 she didn’t bother to use the robots.txt file to deep six it from Wayback (but not necessarily other manual or web crawlers).

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Daily North Shore encourages comments, but we have specific guidelines that you can find here. A general principle is: Do not state anything in a comment that you would not say in public and do not state anything about another person that you would not say to his or her face.

Post comment mobile ad section