Des Moines School Board’s Illegal Superintendent Contract

When the Des Moines School Board began the search for a new superintendent last May, district spokesperson Phil Roeder advised the board it should present a united front to the public and applicants. Only the board president should speak to the media, he urged. He told them to keep things behind closed doors – all bold and robust board conversations should be held internally. They took that part of Roeder’s message to heart.

While the board was unable to present a united front about the person finally selected, they were and remain unified in their commitment to keeping their deliberations and the selection process a secret.

Board member Teree Caldwell-Johnson is so steadfast about keeping things from the public she refuses to explain her vote on new superintendent Tom Ahart’s contract. She didn’t speak during the public meeting at which the vote was taken and when asked afterward about why she voted “no” and her thoughts on the selection process, Caldwell-Johnson offered one of the strangest responses from a public official I have ever heard; “I’m not really at liberty to discuss (my vote) with you. I had my conversation with Mr. Ahart about why I voted the way I did. That’s who I needed to share that information with, not the media.”

No, Ms. Caldwell-Johnson, you represent the people of Des Moines. You owe them an explanation even more than the one you thought you owed Mr. Ahart.

The board’s shameful unwillingness to include the public in the selection of the highest paid superintendent Des Moines has ever had ($260,000 plus an impressive benefits package) should trouble Mr. Ahart’s supporters and detractors alike. The Des Moines School Board failed to meet even the bare minimum legal requirements in the selection of Ahart, the sole internal candidate.

Last week, board president Dick Murphy and three other board members held a news conference to announce the selection of Mr. Ahart and release final details about his contract including his salary. The board had never met in public to discuss, let alone vote on any of this. Since Mr. Ahart’s selection as superintendent and details about his contract weren’t discussed and decided in public, that leaves only one other option. His selection and the details of his contract were discussed and decided upon illegally.

The Des Moines School Board not only abused the intent of Iowa’s public meeting law, they flagrantly broke it.

When addressing the board last May, Mr. Roeder said, “There’s nobody going to tell you this time around that you’re doing it right or wrong. It’s self policing.”

It appears the school board believes self-policing and complete disregard of the public process are one and the same. Oh, and I’m here to tell you what the school board did was wrong.

The Des Moines School Board violated the law when they made a decision in private about who to hire as superintendent and what to pay him. Mr. Ahart should refuse to sign the contract. If the contract is executed, it should be struck down by the Court as illegal.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register print edition essay.
It is similar to the Iowa Watchdog piece posted the same day. 

Put the Tissues Away. Closing Gateway School Makes Sense.

Des Moines School Board members may want to have tissues at the ready Tuesday night. Earnest well-coached middle school students and their sure-to-be-teary-eyed parents are planning to pack the meeting room in an effort to win at least four board member’s votes against the administration’s proposal to close the newly opened Gateway Secondary School housed at Central Campus. These families love the school. One can understand why they do. The 171 students who attend the shiny new Gateway enjoy the lowest student/teacher ratio in the district.

Board members should listen politely to the emotional pleas made by this acutely small minority of district parents and students, but they should base their decision on the facts. Closing Gateway is good for the district as a whole.

First, Gateway’s limited size means it costs over $700 more to educate a Gateway student than it does any other middle school student in the district. Second, Gateway was chartered to provide access to International Baccalaureate (IB) programming not available in neighborhood schools at the time. Making IB curriculum available at Brody Middle School solved that. With Merrill on the west, Meredith on the north, Goodrell on the east and now Brody on the south, middle school students in every corner of Des Moines have access to IB. Last, if the duplicative and tiny Gateway stays open, the district will be forced to spend more than $1.7 million to renovate space needed for vital Central Campus classes that could use the Gateway classrooms.

The District shouldn’t have opened Gateway in 2010. It did because doing so created the illusion of innovation and this helped to continue distracting the community from noticing school leaders lack the vision and courage to address our long festering middle school problem. Middle school is where the deficiencies of education come into bloom and most go perennially unaddressed. We can no longer avoid our failing middle schools. It is time for a comprehensive plan for educating students across the learning spectrum. To continue funding a token school serving 171 students would further hinder serious reform.

The former superintendent lobbied her school board heavily to approve the Gateway Secondary School in 2009. She was losing a battle to open a charter school she had promoted as groundbreaking – she eventually got the charter school, but that boondoggle has and can be discussed in another column. The superintendent needed a win and she pushed hard. The plans and rationale were scant for Gateway, but board members were told it was intended as an IB school and they quietly followed along as they usually did.

Fast-forward to today and we find a middle school serving less than 200 students while the others in Des Moines serve nearly 700. Worse, Gateway is off course. Students take high school classes like fashion design because funding isn’t available to offer the intended more appropriate middle years IB curriculum. That should be reason enough for the board to push to close the school.

Gateway costs more to operate than other schools. It is a duplication of existing neighborhood schools. It uses space needed for Central Campus classes attended by high school students throughout the district. And, Gateway has failed to meet its stated mission.

There will be 150 or so severely disappointed families should the school board accept the administration’s wise proposal to close Gateway, but it is in the best interest of the community and the families of the other 32,000 Des Moines students to let this pet project fade away.

Four years ago an administration disinterested in data and sound planning bamboozled the school board into voting for the Gateway School. On Tuesday, a different administration will present a well-thought and documented argument to close that same school. Here’s hoping the school board has the courage to make a decision based on facts and reason while seated in a room packed with people clutching tissues.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register essay.

Why the May 10 DMPS Board Meeting Matters

“The government is us; we are the government, you and I.” Theodore Roosevelt 

The last thing most of us want to hear is more about former Des Moines Schools superintendent Nancy Sebring’s sexually explicit emails. The emails provided insight into Sebring’s personal life, led to her hasty departure from Des Moines and ended her job in Omaha before it began. The emails painted a sad picture and made for uncomfortable reading. It is best to let the personal sections of the emails fade from public discussion.

However, the parts relating to Sebring’s professional duties shine light on significant dysfunction within the district. The school board had it backwards. It was allowing the superintendent to direct the elected board. This information should not be lost in the effort to put the salaciousness behind us. How the school board and individual members carried out their duties during Sebring’s tenure deserves thorough analysis. This includes the board’s handling of Sebring’s departure.

Last week the Iowa Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on my behalf. I was somewhat hesitant to sign-on to this case. I knew it likely I would be ducking clichés. Throwing mud balls, stirring the pot and beating a dead horse were a few that came to mind. It was Teddy Roosevelt’s quote that convinced me to go forward. Government is you and I. If we look the other way – fail to challenge when we think something is wrong – government will no longer serve us, it will serve itself.

The lawsuit asks the Court to review the audio recording of the closed May 10 Des Moines School Board meeting. When there is a significant question about the legality of a closed meeting, a citizen has two choices; take the public body’s word it obeyed the law, or ask for an independent review. The only entity capable of such a review under Iowa law is the Court.

The school board met in closed session for 80 minutes on May 10. Following the meeting, board president Teree Caldwell-Johnson announced the board would be accepting Sebring’s resignation, which had been received the previous day. We were told the board had also discussed the appointment of Thomas Ahart as acting superintendent, even though the board had taken action months before to name Ahart to the position automatically in the event of a vacancy.

The public notice of the meeting stated it would be closed under this section of the law; “to evaluate the professional competency of an individual whose appointment, hiring, performance, or discharge is being considered when necessary to prevent needless and irreparable injury to that individual’s reputation and that individual requests a closed session.”

So, here’s the problem. The meeting was called after Caldwell-Johnson had confronted Sebring about the emails and, according to Caldwell-Johnson three weeks after the May 10 meeting, “Dr. Sebring offered to submit her resignation within the first few minutes of my initial conversation with her.” Moments after the May meeting, Caldwell-Johnson said the board did not discuss Sebring's performance, and Sebring was not being considered for appointment, hiring or discharge. Caldwell-Johnson contended the discussion was about Sebring's decision to speed her departure. Caldwell-Johnson went on to say this, “I don’t know if it {the meeting} would have caused anyone any harm. I think it’s just a procedural thing.”

Since Sebring’s appointment, hiring, performance, or discharge was not being considered, the board lacked the ability to discuss her resignation in private. If it did, Caldwell-Johnson’s procedural thing is, in reality, an illegal thing.

The lawsuit acknowledges discussion of Ahart’s professional competency would be appropriate under the law. But, remember, the board met for and hour and twenty minutes. It is a fair guess most of that time was spent discussing Sebring, not Ahart. More important, it is a good possibility the board spent that time planning how to handle the fallout. Elected officials cannot meet in private to plan a political response, even when the topic is dicey.

An employee can seek a closed session if he feels his reputation might be needlessly harmed. But, a public body cannot close its doors just because it feels talking on the record may harm board members’ political interests.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as an essay in Des Moines CityView.  

Moving Forward – Sebring is Gone. The School Board is Not.

I filed a request with the Office of Citizens’ Aide/Ombudsman to investigate the 12:00 p.m., May 10 closed meeting of the Des Moines Public School Board. This is the link to the letter to the Ombudsman and this is the link to the attachments I included with the letter to the Ombudsman.

I contend the Des Moines Public School Board improperly went into closed session on May 10 to discuss political strategy on how to best handle the resignation of Nancy Sebring.

In the minutes, hours and days following the meeting, the board president and District officials misled the public to why Sebring resigned. They have subsequently said they did so because the truth would come out eventually. It is not up to public officials or employees to decide when and how the truth surfaces.

As interim superintendent, Thomas Ahart should make every effort to end the controversy surrounding this matter. He should rescind his request for a closed meeting and the School Board should release the recording of the entire session as soon as possible.

Should Mr. Ahart refuse to rescind his request, all portions of the meeting should be made public that do not involve Thomas Ahart’s performance, appointment, hiring or discharge. The public has a right to evaluate the matter free of the changing filters established by self-interested board members and DMPS employees.

The quickest way to dispense with the swirling controversy Nancy Sebring left behind is to open all of the records. This would allow the public to reach an informed decision about how to best move our community forward.

### 

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.

Des Moines Schools Blame Game with IA Dept. of Ed and DM Register

In my last blog I expressed annoyance with the Des Moines School Board for its apparent lack of knowledge of and, more specifically, concern about the troubling accreditation report issued by the Iowa Department of Education.  I concluded by calling the School Board an impotent body.  It appears I was wrong to single out the School Board.  Unfortunately, the Department of Education does not exactly stand tall with competence either.

My blog caught Superintendent Nancy Sebring’s attention.  Convinced my sole source of information had been the Des Moines Register, she invited me to coffee to lay out the facts saying “you need to know that there were serious factual errors in their reports (and editorial) regarding the accreditation report.”

I accepted the invitation immediately.  We spent nearly two hours reviewing the Iowa Department of Education’s findings, the school district’s responses, the School Board’s involvement and the Register’s coverage.

Dr. Sebring acknowledged the 19 specific areas of non-compliance in the report.  We went through most of them in detail and discussed how the District was addressing or planned to address each.  She wanted me to know the District was taking the matter very seriously.  However, the primary errors she pointed to were not made by the Register, but by the Iowa Department of Education.

Let me be clear, Dr. Sebring told me she believes the Register’s stories and editorial border on slander.  Dr. Sebring carelessly tosses around accusations of slander and conspiracy, but I do not immediately dismiss her charges.  In fact, they demand discussion and I will write more on this later.  Today, I am going to focus on the Department of Education.

One error made by the Department of Education rises above the rest.  Listed in the findings of the Department’s official report the District received on June 22 was Item 11 in the section titled Areas of Non-Compliance:  Chapter 12 mandates Des Moines Schools.  It said the District had yet to submit a signed assurance from the superintendent that two people who were teaching had been “removed from the assignment of teaching…and not paid for the teaching assignment” as of “April 7, 2011, the date the district was officially notified,” because neither person was “endorsed or certified to teach.”  Officially notified?  Perhaps not.

According to Dr. Sebring, an exhaustive search of District Email and paper files, and extensive discussions with staff and former staff indicate the Department never notified the School District two people had to be removed from teaching.  Further, Sebring told me she was baffled as to why the District was cited at all in the case of an assistant teacher who was teaching Chinese in an elementary school.  She claims the District had received oral approval from a state education official to utilize this person as a teacher before the school year began.

It seemed implausible the Department of Education would demand two people be fired without documenting each step of the process.  So, I asked the Department of Education for the dated transmittal documents and the original official demand the individuals be removed from teaching by April 7.  Surprisingly, there are no such documents.

The document the Iowa Department of Education provided as proof it had mandated two people be removed from teaching in Des Moines classrooms.

The Department sent me a copy of the preliminary report the Department claims was transmitted to the District and a copy of a hand-scrawled, undated note from a departing Education employee to her superior.  The note explains where on a computer the preliminary report was to be found and that, “This is the document given to Mike Munoz on 4/7/11.”  Munoz was a District employee who has also left his job.  The note was signed “Julie.”

Holy cats!  Thousands of dollars and countless man hours went into compiling an accreditation report showing 19 disquieting deficiencies in the Des Moines Schools.  In response to the findings, the Department demanded the District fire two employees without notice and the main documentation the Department can provide is a nearly illegible internal note proving nothing.

It’s a classic he said/she said argument of incompetence.

The Department’s apparent lack of internal documentation and controls in this case give credence to Dr. Sebring’s assertion the District might have received oral consent from the Department to hire the uncertified Chinese language teacher in the first place.  After getting a look at the shoddy way the Department of Education keeps records it seems possible.

I have been told Jason Glass, director of the Iowa Department of Education plans to attend tomorrow’s Des Moines School Board meeting.  No word on if he will address the report or the District’s accusations, but it seems likely.  One can only hope both the Department and the District will learn oral agreements and off-the-record chatter cannot stand-in for documentation and controls.

One has to wonder why the District didn’t demand something more than a handshake when seeking an exemption from state law to use an uncertified teacher in the classroom and why the Department would think the District would act on a document so clearly marked draft, even if it was handed to a District administrator as the Department purports.

But, let’s remember, one entity’s ineptitude does not excuse another’s.  The fact the Des Moines School Board had not received or read the State’s report did not stop one board member from saying, “I believe the school district is addressing each and every one of these issues.”

The School Board did not read what the Department of Education had written, and the Department apparently does not put in writing that which needs to be documented.

Looks like education officials in Des Moines and Iowa could both use a Viagra type infusion of competence.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

The Impotency of the DSM School Board

The Iowa Department of Education issued a disappointing accreditation report to the Des Moines school district.  The State found unlicensed teachers in the classroom, an inappropriate use of dedicated state funds, high school seniors attending school for fewer days than required, and credit being given for classes in violation of state law.  Even worse, when the State notified school officials about these violations and prescribed a timeline to correct some of the most egregious of them, the District refused to take action.

If you think the Des Moines School Board is outraged and pressing for immediate action, you are sadly mistaken.  The sound you hear is school board members trying to change the subject. 

The Des Moines School Board continues to abdicate nearly all of its oversight responsibility opting to blindly trust school administrators to run our public schools as they wish.

Not only did Superintendent Nancy Sebring fail to provide a copy of the accreditation report to the school board, but even after the troubling findings were reported in this paper, not a single school board member thought there was a need to read it himself.   And, according to today’s Des Moines Register story, the District has submitted a corrective action plan to the State without school board review or input.

So, class, let’s review.  The District received the report, ignored the parts district officials did not like and submitted a plan to fix the other problems all without a discussion with the School Board or one involving the public.

However, lack of knowledge about the report and the District response to it did not stop one school board member from saying, “I believe the school district is addressing each and every one of these issues.”

Wow.  If the school board does not know what the report says, let alone what district officials are doing about the violations it contains; how in the world can a school board member believe the correct actions are being taken?

The overwhelming silence from the school board and its lack of interest in this serious matter makes one wonder what it would take to get this board’s attention.

If school board members cannot be bothered to read official reports, it is impossible to imagine they will ever take the initiative to dig into problems on their own in an effort to represent those they were elected to serve.

This school board’s disinterest in wading into any controversy, setting policy and overseeing the actions of the administration has rendered the Des Moines School Board an impotent body.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com


This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Hey, kid, want a free laptop? The Selling of a Des Moines School

My daughter had to miss the review for tomorrow’s math test today.  Des Moines Public School officials thought a sales pitch by the folks from the new charter school would be a better use of some Callanan Middle School students’ time.  The pitchers wanted to make sure the Gifted and Talented kids and English Language Learners knew they were equally welcome to apply.  Just like late night infomercial hucksters, the sales team had a strong closing message for the kids, “every student accepted at our shiny new school gets a completely free laptop of his or her very own.”

The problem, I don’t send my children to school to get sold to, I send them to learn.

Des Moines School Officials are Selling their Charter School to a Live Student Audience Near You

The new charter school has been plagued with controversy since before it opened its doors. Organizers of the charter school spent a great deal of time during a school board meeting in 2009 selling the board on the concept.  Only after every member of the audience left, save one dedicated Drake journalism student, did the superintendent reveal the picture was not so rosy and the funding was not secure.  And, the supposedly independent group overseeing the charter school hired Des Moines Schools’ superintendent Nancy Sebring’s twin sister without – “wink, wink” – knowing the relationship.  Since then the Des Moines Public School District has appropriated resources to create this new charter school in extremely difficult economic times.  And, it is rumored the school is shy of the enrollment numbers that were promised, which leads to today’s recruiting session.

But, enough about the charter school.  Even if the place were a raging success, it is not appropriate to take kids away from learning time to hear a sales pitch; especially one their parents know nothing about.  When it comes to deciding which school is appropriate for a child, at a minimum, an attempt needs to be made to get the information to the parents first.

District officials are quick to point out a charter school operates independently from the public school district and a charter school is exempt from many public school restrictions.  Therefore, it is no more appropriate for the charter school to recruit students during the school day than it would be for a private school to do so.  (Should Merrill Middle School be able recruit at other schools for its International Baccalaureate Program?  Should the private Bergman Academy present to public school students about its educational model?)

No matter how I look at this, this official school assembly smells.  My daughter missed valuable class time the day before her math exam.  The charter school was allowed open access to recruit public school students, providing it an advantage over every other public school in an open enrollment enabled district as well as every other private school. Parents were not informed of or involved in the charter school sales session, meaning they have to get the information from their children in a silly game of catch-up.  Teachers lost more minutes teaching and students lost learning time.

Admittedly, I am skeptical when education administrators roll out a new program that takes resources from existing programs.  When the new dream project flounders and these same administrators try to sell directly to students, I get concerned their priorities really are out of whack.

###

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Des Moines School District Needs to Revamp its Budget

Des Moines Public Schools (DMPS) Superintendent Nancy Sebring sounded off here recently. In a piece oddly laced with gun references (statistics are like dueling pistols, returning fire, rifling through documents, etc.), she said Cityview had insulted teachers, diminished the considerable accomplishments of thousands of students and provided a disservice to the readers of this paper. Stinging words all. As a former school board member and father of three DMPS students, I want to join in her defense of our district. Great things happen here. However, Dr. Sebring missed Cityview’s point and an opportunity to strengthen public support for our schools.

Dr. Sebring was responding to the August 12 opinion piece, Save our Schools (from Microsoft). The techno-geeks at Cityview argued DMPS could save hundreds of thousands of dollars by replacing expensive Microsoft operating systems on DMPS computers with free Linux systems. Made sense to me, but I tend to tune-out when I hear “operating system.” It reminds me of what Daniel Rademeyer, the self appointed AV expert in high school, talked about when he cornered you in the lunchroom.

Dr. Sebring tuned out for another reason – she got angry. Cityview had asserted the DMPS budget uses “arcane language.” Sorry, Doctor, it does. Federal and state constraints sometimes require a certain structure, but there is more. DMPS resists a simpler budget. Such a document would make it easier for those not versed in school budget nuance to deconstruct it and, in turn, influence policy. There, I said it. A budget easy enough for Cityview to understand would mean more could comment on it and, dare I suggest it, make recommendations about how things might be done differently.

Dr. Sebring said Citview’s comments about the budget indicate, “1) that you don’t understand it, in which case you might have come to us for some explanation and 2) that we are deliberately obfuscating.” I love this bit of wordplay, for if the DMPS budget is so complicated it has to be explained, it is by definition something that obfuscates. (Obfuscate: to make something obscure or unclear, especially by making it unnecessarily complicated. I was the self-appointed word geek in high school.)

The administrator in Dr. Sebring said the budget is “complex and every year’s final result is a jigsaw puzzle pieced together from an assortment of sources. That’s why we hold public forums and meetings with employee groups and create opportunities for explanation and input throughout the process.” I wish the teacher in Dr. Sebring would realize that if the community has to be taught every year how to read the budget, the problem may not be that the community cannot learn, but that there is something wrong with the way the budget is written.

I have reviewed many a DMPS budget. Funding sources for public education come with restrictions. One tax levy can only be used for instruction. The Physical Plant and Equipment Levy voters are considering renewing as this paper is printed is exclusively used for building repairs and equipment. Yet another is dedicated to playgrounds, community education and middle school athletics. Sales tax revenue is dedicated solely to construction costs. The funding sources are too numerous to mention, but Cityview’s point should not be lost. While DMPS revenues come from diverse sources, its expenditures are focused on a few things, most involving education.

If DMPS made the budget easier to understand, taxpayers might see more clearly the noble efforts made to protect and improve our schools and the superintendent may never again have to rap the Cityview troublemakers on the knuckles for mouthing off after class.

Dr. Sebring rightfully points out that DMPS has pioneered excellent programs that inspire and educate students across the academic spectrum. I share her pride in what is being done well here. But, things are far from perfect.

I can imagine it is difficult for Dr. Sebring and her colleagues to hear criticism about what isn’t working in tough economic times that strip school budgets. However, I caution them to not jump to the conclusion that all those who criticize are out to get them. Every so often an idea like switching computer operating systems makes sense. The superintendent should invite discussion instead of chastising those who raise their hands. She never addressed the Linux idea, but defensively invited Cityview to visit DMPS schoolhouses so they could learn a thing or two about what goes on there. The Microsoft vs. Linux question does not require a lecture, just an answer.

This entry was first published as a guest column in Des Moines Cityview.

Tuesday’s School Levy Vote and a Call for a New Budget Document

On Tuesday, September 14, Des Moines voters will have the opportunity to vote on whether to renew the Physical Plant and Equipment Levy (PPEL) imposed by the Des Moines Public School District (DMPS). PPEL raises nearly $4.5 million dollars to fix buildings and buy certain equipment. The levy is set to expire June 2011 and, should voters approve the ballot measure, it will be renewed for ten years. I plan to vote “yes” to renew and I have asked others to do the same, but in explaining the importance of PPEL, I have been reminded how confusing the DMPS budget is. It doesn’t have to be this way.

As a former school board member, I have reviewed a number of DMPS budgets. I know how frustrating the document can be. Many of the numerous funding sources for public education come with restrictions. The Instructional Support Levy is restricted to instructional purposes like elementary counseling, class-size reduction, and reading, writing, and math recovery. Yet another levy is dedicated to playgrounds, community education and middle school athletics. And, the sales tax revenue is dedicated solely to construction costs. These sources and PPEL represent only a few of the funding sources that finance our schools. This dizzying array of sources and the rules which restrict them make the budget anything but simple, but the document does not have to be as complicated as it is currently.

Superintendent Nancy Sebring recently said in Cityview that the budget is “complex and every year’s final result is a jigsaw puzzle pieced together from an assortment of sources. That’s why we hold public forums and meetings with employee groups and create opportunities for explanation and input throughout the process.” I would urge her to consider that the problem is the budget document itself. There is a better way to write it.

This year’s budget can be found here. Its eighty-one pages provide the information that is legally required of a school budget, but it is difficult for most people to get their arms around. It would make far more sense to create a section for each funding source that provides all information relating to that source.

The Instructional Support Levy and every other source would have its own section. The section would include: when the source was first approved, by what entity (state, federal, vote of the people, etc.), when it was renewed, how it was renewed, when it is set to expire/renew, the amount of revenue it creates, and how that revenue will be specifically spent. Links to additional information such as the Iowa Statute that established the source, vote totals when it was approved, information for specific expenditures, etc. would all be provided in each section. Each section’s total revenue and total expenditure would be carried through to the broader budget document so readers could follow a clear trail from the source to the overall budget and back. This would take much of the mystery out of what is now a baffling document.

Before the next budget season commences, the School Board and Dr. Sebring need to dedicate themselves to making the budget easier to understand. If they do, DMPS will spend less time explaining the budget and more time gaining consensus about how to move forward as a community to protect and improve our schools.

(Contact Graham Gillette at grahamgillette@gmail.com)

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Des Moines Wants a New School. Now is Not the Time.

The Des Moines school district is planning to open a new middle school next year. It has been dubbed the Gateway Secondary School and will be housed at Central Campus. It will eventually serve 6^th through 10^th grade students and will offer the International Baccalaureate program. The fact the district is adding a new school at a time when it is letting teachers go from existing schools seems, well, odd.

The good news: There is space at Central Campus to house the school and the money the District is using to renovate the space comes from funds that cannot be used for teacher salaries. Further, the students who will attend the new school would require teachers even if they remained at their current neighborhood schools.

The bad news: There are costs associated with starting a new school. Administrative oversight, training for the International Baccalaureate program, and other additional costs that come with opening a new school such as desks, computers, and support staff are all being added to the expense side of the District ledger at a time when the District faces what some have called an unprecedented budget crunch.

One thing public school systems love to do is start new programs. School boards and administrators like to unveil shiny new programs and position themselves as innovators. It’s easier to get attention by building something new, than by fixing what is broken and maintaining what isn’t.

Des Moines Public Schools officials were as excited about opening the Downtown School in the 1990’s as they are about the new middle school being proposed this year. Placing elementary students in a less restrictive classroom environment in a building on the skywalk downtown close to working parents was touted as a winning innovation. It worked. The applause came. The location and the new learning style got the Des Moines’ Downtown School recognized nationally as a model to be followed.

Fast forward to today. The Downtown School has fallen out of favor, not because it didn’t work, but because Des Moines school leaders have something new sparking their interest. The Des Moines School District has invested thousands, maybe even millions into the International Baccalaureate program. (It is a little hard to place a firm price tag on the DMPS – IB program. A lot of money has gone into training educators, some positions have been kept or added to IB schools when similar positions don’t exist at non-IB schools and building/renovation dollars like the new middle school at Central Campus are not tagged specifically as an IB expense.) The Downtown School is being “relocated” out of the Keck City Center to Central Campus as a feeder program for the new IB middle school.

Kids will no longer be in walking distance of their working parents. Face it, the Downtown School experiment is over. Let the Central Campus K – 10 school and IB experiments begin!

In spite of the District’s horrific budget scenario, the Superintendent and School Board have had their hearts set on opening a new school for some time. Last fall, much time and effort was expended by school officials and others planning a new charter school. In late September and early October School Board members and the public were presented with details of a new school that was, dare I say it, an innovation. There were plans for community-based learning systems, team-based instruction, involving parents and families, and a ground-breaking entrepreneurial experiment with the Downtown Farmers Market. But, the federal seed dollars were denied and the charter school concept withered. Not to fear, those who want something new have the Gateway School and IB to crow about.

The International Baccalaureate program holds merit as one where students can achieve and deserves to be considered. Equally, a rethinking of our failing middle school concept is long overdue. But, what is needed in Des Moines more than building a new pilot program or opening a new school is a comprehensive plan for how we serve students at every school and at every learning level. Drafting such a plan is not as sexy as cutting a ribbon to a shimmering new or renovated facility, but it will have a larger, more meaningful impact in the long run.

Opening a new school during a budget crisis seems foolish, but even in the best of times we should not be bamboozled. We are failing too many kids in our middle schools. We shouldn’t spend valuable resources on new programs like a Gateway IB school for some kids to be housed in a new facility. Doing so generates news stories and may win a few administrators nice awards, but it does little to solve the problems the bulk of kids face in our schools. Let’s spend the scant resources we have on teachers and learning in the schools we have before we spend it opening something new that may fall out of favor when the next superintendent comes along.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Senator Gronstal Starts Schoolyard Fight with Des Moines School Board

An interesting letter to the editor appeared in the Saturday Des Moines Register. The Iowa Senate Majority Leader, State Senator Mike Gronstal, offered a scathing rebuke of Superintendent Nancy Sebring and the Des Moines School Board. Gronstal was troubled by their actions during this year’s budget process. His tone was strong and stinging. Almost as surprising as a person in Gronstal’s position making such an accusation is the Register’s relegation of Gronstal’s comments to a mere letter to the editor. The relationship between Des Moines School officials and State leaders has deteriorated to such a point they are calling each other names. This situation demands further investigation by the media.

In his letter Senator Gronstal said Des Moines school officials “deliberately set out to scare parents, teachers and students with doomsday scenarios that were irresponsible, inflammatory and, well, pure fiction.” He said Superintendent Sebring and the School Board “conspired to unnecessarily scare families, teachers, parents and residents of Des Moines with irresponsible budget scenarios.” He used phrases like “flights of fancy” and suggested that the officials in Des Moines were less than honest. Even in today’s caustic political climate, such chilling words are unusual. There is trouble right here, right now in Iowa’s capital city. If the parties do not come together and patch up their differences before the next budget season, our school district might suffer.

Much of what Senator Gronstal says make sense to me this time. I could never get the Des Moines School District’s numbers to add up before the State allocated money and the revised numbers discussed at last week’s School Board meeting still appear suspect. In the numbers the District bandied about in what Gronstal calls the “doomsday scenario” was an overall potential $30 million shortfall. The District told us this meant approximately 346 teaching positions would be eliminated. Now the shortfall appears to be $11 million, yet the District predicts 173 teaching positions will be lost. So, the cuts in dollars are 73% less than expected, but the cut to teaching positions is only 50% compared to the doomsday number. Either there is something odd about the District’s math, or the District feels there are things more important to use these additional tax dollars on than teaching positions.

I cannot say if Senator Gronstal is being fair or honest in his remarks and I do not know what motivated him to get out his acerbic pen. I certainly am not writing this to defend him. But, something is terribly wrong when people in power do not trust each other. The Des Moines School Board, the Administration and Senator Gronstal all have some explaining to do. Since they are all adults and cannot be sent to the principal’s office, the public needs to hold them accountable. The place to start might be taking this feud off the letters to the editor page and making it a front page investigative piece.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Stand Up for Education, Stand Up for Teachers

Last night I went to the Callanan Middle School band concert. It, like all of the others I have attended over the last few years, made me marvel about the difference a good teacher can make. While I know better, it would be easy to believe Dana Andrews employs magical powers to transform these gangly, disorganized and often unfocused adolescents into musicians. I know many of the kids who were up on that stage and like them very much – one in particular. In fact, it is my familiarity with these kids that makes me appreciate Mr. Andrews all the more. In the hours and days he spends with his students, he teaches more than music. He weaves respect and discipline into the lessons, and leads theses hormone raging beings down a path of discovery that ends in a belief in themselves.

Mr. Andrews and his colleagues in classrooms across our District do something remarkable. They teach and, in doing so, they mold the future for thousands of students. Due to budget cuts, it is likely there will be 300 less teachers in Des Moines next year. This will mean fewer band performances and math competitions. More important, there will be fewer individual interactions between teacher and student. Many of the teachers will find other jobs, but how many magical, life transforming connections will be lost for the students they leave behind? Over-crowded classrooms and pared back curriculums will have a monetary and social impact that we cannot calculate.

During a Facebook discussion on Monday about the likely loss of teachers in Des Moines Public Schools next year, one of those commenting said something fuzzy about it being time we stop “throwing” money at schools until parents get more involved in raising their children. She said personal responsibility starts at home and went on about turning off the TV, silencing cell phones and reading books to kids. OK, American kids do watch too much TV and wonderful things happen when adults read to children, but could she really think this alone would balance the probable loss of more than 300 teachers in our schools next Fall? I hope she wasn’t serious.

My Facebook friend is a good person who volunteers her time and does good work for the community. And, adults need to play a role in helping children reach their potential. However, the funding crisis faced in Iowa schools will not be solved by a lecture on the importance of personal responsibility. Class size will go up, some subjects will be reduced or eliminated, and learning will suffer next year unless something is done.

After the concert, many of the parents gathered in the Callanan lunchroom to discuss what could be done to protect music, art and classroom teachers in these tough economic times. I heard frustration and anxiety in their voices. If you share this concern, I ask that you join us in doing something about it. Des Moines Schools Superintendent Nancy Sebring and the School Board face some terrible decisions. They should not make these without hearing from you. It is equally important for you to contact Governor Culver and members of the General Assembly. The most likely place to find dollars to fill the budget shortfall is at the state level. Without new money, the District has to decide where and, ultimately, which teachers to cut.

Please join us in letting school and state officials know how important teachers are to the education equation. The next School Board meeting is Tuesday, March 9 at 6:00 p.m. Attend, if you can. Watch the meeting on cable channel 12, if you cannot. Contact the officials below to tell them how you feel.

Contact Information
For a list school board members and their contact information click here.
To contact Des Moines School officials click here.
For a list of Iowa House members and Iowa Senators click here.
To contact Governor Chet Culver click here.

More Information
For a link to Des Moines Public Schools Board agenda that includes the proposed budget cuts click here.
Here is a list of the positions being cut at each Des Moines school

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Teachers’ Union 1; Students, Parents and Community 0

The Des Moines School Board sided with the teachers’ union last night and voted to dismiss school 90 minutes early every Wednesday. According to the school board, the early dismissals will provide an additional 24 hours of professional development time for teachers next year. The more appropriate way to see this is that students will be out of the classroom for three additional days next year. Achievement rates will continue to falter.

The plain and simple truth is that the school board has a contract with the union and kowtowed to their wishes without listening to or considering parents, students and the community. It is time for the school board to form a contract with those they serve, the people who live in the district boundaries. Maybe a binding contract with the community would help balance the wishes of the teachers’ union with the vital mission of the district, educating students.

Teachers are professionals who, by and large, inspire young people to learn and toil in a realm where most of us would be utter failures. They deserve our respect and support. If teachers need development and planning time, we should find a way to provide it, but we should do so without penalizing students. I cannot think of another business or organization that locks its doors to the people it serves during vital business hours every week to train staff. For nearly every other institution, professional development and planning time are done with a combination of paid time during the day and non-paid hours by employees.

Teachers do not punch time clocks. They are professionals. It is time the school board, the administration and the public treat them that way. We need to seek a way to pay them for the whole job (teaching and planning) and stop haggling over how many minutes a day are spent in the school building. Professionals do a job. They do not get paid by the hour.

I have been a follower, participant, champion and critic of the Des Moines School District for many, many years. I count myself and my children lucky to be a part of this school system. But, too often the school board and administration make decisions in a vacuum without consulting or considering all of the parties affected by their decisions. Do not fool yourself, the decision to place the vote for early dismissal on agendas straddling the Holidays was intentional. As planned, the issue went unnoticed by a distracted public and by the time it was noticed, the school board had voted – a decision had been made. The school district follows the letter of open meeting and public notification laws, but they rarely do much more. Public input is regularly discouraged.

In this space last fall, I wrote about how Superintendent Nancy Sebring sat quietly during a lengthy presentation regarding a proposed charter school. She waited until most members of the public left the room and most watching at home turned the channel before she announced a key funding piece of the new school had been denied by the federal government. It is possible that if a Drake Journalism student had not sat until the bitter end of the meeting, this piece of information would have gone entirely unnoticed by everyone but the school board and a handful of district employees. The decision to hold a key vote on the second business evening after New Year’s was a similar manipulation of the agenda done to keep the public out of the loop.

The reduction in learning time is bad for students and the game playing by the school board to keep the community out of the process is reprehensible. One would think an elected school board would involve the public instinctively. This board does not. It is time for the community to draw up a contract with the school board that gives us at least as much say in negotiating the school calendar and matters of education as the teachers’ union has. It is only fair that parents, students and the community be given equal footing in this discussion with the teachers and employees whose salaries are paid with tax dollars.



Note added after initial post: I want to be clear about my statement that professionals do a job and the following sentence that they do not get paid by the hour. I did not say this well. Many professionals (i.e. plumbers, electricians, nurses) get paid by the hour. They are professionals and paying them by the hour is the best and fairest way to compensate them for the nature of their work. Most of these professionals pursue professional development off the clock as well, often with the help and support of unions. If paying teachers by the hour is a solution worth pursuing, so be it, because being considered a professional is not linked to how one gets paid. If my comments insinuated otherwise, I apologize.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.

Des Moines School Superintendent Owes an Apology, Drake Student Deserves Praise

The other night, Drake Journalism student Holly Worthy stuck with a Des Moines School Board meeting until the bitter end. Having sat through many of these meetings in my life, let me assure you this can be a tedious, mind numbing task. But, Ms. Worthy deserves praise for something more than warming a seat in the audience when nearly everybody else went home. She knew the issues at hand and caught the Superintendent and maybe the Board playing a bit of a game. We’ll come back to Ms. Worthy in a second, but first let’s see what she discovered while many of the rest of us were watching something more interesting on TV from the comfort of home.

The School Board members, Superintendent Nancy Sebring and organizers of a proposed new charter school spent more than two hours discussing the school. They talked about a day in the life of a student at the new school, the educational innovation to be applied there, community-based learning systems, how team-based instruction would work, plans for involving parents and families, and even a plan for an entrepreneurial experiment with the Downtown Farmers Market. It is fair to say there was great interest, lots of information and in-depth discussion about the school. At the conclusion of the presentation, many audience members and parties interested in the new school left the board room with high hopes feeling they had been privy to a thorough presentation. Luckily, Ms. Worthy stayed behind to catch what happened next.

Three hours after the board meeting began the audience had dwindled to three district employees and Ms. Worthy. The meetings are televised on cable and, while there is no way to know, I am guessing there were not too many hardy souls tuned in at that point. In her routine superintendent’s report, Dr. Sebring proceeded to inform the Board and the audience, which consisted basically of Ms. Worthy, that the U.S. Department of Education had denied the district’s grant request for $478,345 for the charter school discussed earlier. The denial of these funds meant the school’s opening will be delayed at least one year.

Fortunately, Ms. Worthy wrote a story about this for thinkdsm.com. I was led to Ms. Worthy’s story, Des Moines charter school suffers setback, last week thanks to a friend’s Facebook update. Ms. Worthy and Think Magazine deserve our applause. Ms. Worthy’s reporting uncovered an unfortunate political game being playing by the Superintendent. Dr. Sebring purposely decided not to divulge the grant had been denied during the more public discussion in hopes the news would go unnoticed. That is just flat out wrong.

It is not up to Dr. Sebring or the School Board to decide when and what information is provided to taxpayers. More important, Dr. Sebring’s sitting on the grant’s denial during a discussion of the school only to reveal it when almost all of the interested parties were in their cars and on their way home is reprehensible. A public servant is not doing her job if she tries to hide the facts from the public. Dr. Sebring should have released this information during the formal discussion about the school. Dr. Sebring owes the Board and the public, especially those volunteering to establish the new school, an apology.

This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register blog entry.