Since the beginning of the school year Des Moines has enrolled 433 new students identified as English Language Learners. This is about the size of too many of Iowa's school districts. The largest growth recently has been students from Burma, Burundi, Nepal and Somali. In all, students in the ELL program speak more than 60 languages. Currently, 4,360 students are enrolled in ELL.
Not only is this a financial strain not shared by many other school districts in Iowa, but it also strains the test scores and overall academic achievement of the district as it struggles to comply with No Child Left Behind. Keep this in mind the next time you read about Des Moines schools failing the "one size fits all" requirements of NCLB.
The Board will be discussing the ELL status report at Tuesday's meeting.
The proposed Charter School for at-risk middle school students is to have a budget of $643,000. Most of this money is to come from per pupil state aid ($583,600 from 100 students). What this means is that the middle schools from hence these students come will have to make do with less money.
For example, if 10 students come from each of the 10 middle schools each middle school will have $58,360 less money in its budget. That is at least one teacher, maybe two, and a combination of fewer associates and supplies. Since 10 students does not a classroom make, this could lead to more overcrowding or less options available for students. Add on top of this the 10% state budget cut and you have a financial crisis in the middle schools.
The problem is that middle schools is where the high school dropouts of tomorrow are made. This could lead to unintended and counterproductive consequences. The Charter School is designed to reduce high school dropouts, but its budgetary impact could have the opposite effect.
The School Board needs to dig into this issue at its meeting tonight and make sure that the Charter School band wagon does not drag some middle school students under its wheels.
The trouble with blogs of this type is that they tend towards criticism. The trouble with the current school board and its Superintendent is that it is hard to find much to criticize. The board is one of the most experienced and competent that we have had in many years. The Superintendent is the best in a long time. But every now and then, there is going to be a slip up, and I will be duty bound to point in out.
Case in point is the curious timing of the Superintendent's announcement that the US Department of Education had rejected the District's grant application for $478,345 to be used to open the charter school in 2010. As first reported by Holly Worthy of www.thinkdsm.com the announcement was not made during the two-hour charter school presentation at the October 6, 2009 board meeting. It was announced much later, at the tail end of the long meeting after much of the audience (including the Register reporter), and one would have to imagine most of the television audience as well, had left.
Alerted of this odd event by a Facebook post by Graham Gillette, I watched the pertinent part of the replay of the board meeting tonight. Dr. Sebring's rather sheepish announcement was not met by groans of anguish or stunned questions from the board, as one might suspect, but by stone silence. Having set at that table for something like 200 meetings over 9 years, I have the strong sense that the board members knew about the letter before the meeting ever started. Yet no one mentioned it during the presentation.
The loss of the grant will make it very difficult to open the charter school in 2010. Facing severe budget cuts it will be difficult if not impossible to undertake any new initiatives next year, even one as worthy as the charter school. At the very least the lost funding source should have been made part of the presentation so there could have been a timely discussion of its impact before the board votes on the charter school at its October 20 meeting.
If they vote for it, I hope they explain how they intend to pay for it and what current programs will be cut. That doesn't mean there aren't some programs that deserve the axe, there are. It does mean there needs to be a little more transparency in the process.
Check out this article for parents of high school students:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/09/column-a-school-year-playbook-for-parents-.html
Between election day and the first board meeting of the new board there is a lot of behind-the-scenes in-fighting going on over who will be the new board chair (prior to the policy governance reforms, president). This can get nasty. In fact in the 1980's and early '90's it would take several ballots to elect a president. A lot of feelings were hurt and a lot of deals were made. It got so bad that at some point in the '90's before I joined the board in 1997, the school board came together and decided to create a pecking order based on seniority and rotate the presidency and vice presidency annually based on this pecking order. I really did not like that. Not every board members is cut out to be president/chair.
Well, beginning in 2001 the board lost a lot of its continuity and traditions due to so many incumbents losing at the polls. The pecking order was one of those traditions that was lost/forgotten. It is back to the rough and tumble days of yesteryear!
Two members of the board really want to be chair: Ginny Strong and Teree Caldwell-Johnson. Trouble is, neither has the 4 votes necessary to win. Paradoxically, a third board member can easily count on 4, maybe 5 votes, but this board member doesn't really want the job.
Strong is the current board chair, and she wants a second term. A second consecutive term would be unprecedented or as an old lawyer might say, has not happened since the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. She has done a fine job as chair and understands Policy Governance better than any other board member, but apparently the manner in which she runs the board meetings, particularly in the last couple of months, has rubbed a lot of board members the wrong way.
Caldwell-Johnson also wants the job, but it is unclear why. It is a hell of a lot of work. But her candidacy is not gaining any traction primarily because her fellow board members don't think she deserves the job. In essence she has done nothing to earn it. And they don't like how she is unprepared for board meetings, tends to grandstand, and ducks the tough votes.
Ducking examples include abstaining on the Policy Governance vote on 11/20/07, abstaining on the code of conduct vote on 6/2/09, and suddenly finding a conflict of interest over the Rice property after voting in favor of selling the property. The biggest of all, and the one that might really sting the board members was her "No" vote on the censure of Narcisse on 9/16/08, claiming that everything in the censure was not in the public record; a claim that I understand not to be true.
Her pass on Policy Governance is particularly interesting because she claims it was due to the fact that she had not had time to talk to Iowa City board members about their experience with it. The Des Moines board had at that time been working on Policy Governance for 11 months.
These sorts of votes don't sit well with your colleagues. I am sure the other board members are wondering what sort of leader she would be in light of these votes.
It should be an interesting Tuesday night, unless the third candidate with the votes there for the asking steps up and takes the Chair.
Sixty minutes until the polls close. Turnout looks very light. I guess between 5,000 and 6,000 will vote. Conventional wisdom would say this is good news for incumbents and there is no reason to doubt the CW this year.
Here are my predictions: (1) Link; (2) Boesen; (3) Buckton; (4) Caldwell-Johnson; and (5) Gallardo.
Next up for the school board is the in-fighting that will go on for the next week over who will be the next board chair (president). I've got some inside scoop and insight to share in my next post.
Connie Boesen, Patty Link and Margaret Buckton have my unqualified endorsement for election to the Des Moines School Board. All three have demonstrated a passion for public education and our community. Boesen has shown the most with her initiative and drive to improve our schools. She is also the most senior member of the board at a time when we need experience at the top.
As a former teacher and a mother of school-age children, Link brings the perspective of a parent to the board and has the potential to become an educational leader in our community. She will continue to improve as she becomes more confident in her role on the board.
Buckton will bring a deep understanding of educational issues to the board. She will be a tremendous addition, adding tremendous depth on the issues.
I am more reserved in my endorsement of Teree Caldwell-Johnson. Her support tonight for a moment of silence and the ability of students to express their religious views in a public school give me pause. It is not only contrary to the law of the land, but would misdirect the school board's attention away from its primary purpose: educating our children. I have other reservations about her three years of service on the board (she and I served together for one year) but they are not enough to move one of the other contenders into the fourth slot.
The best of the rest are Thalia Sutton and Felipe Gallardo. Sutton has great potential although her youth and inexperience are against her. Sitting on a board with a lot less youth and a lot more experience would help her development into a solid board member. Gallardo would bring his experience with at-risk children and his connections with the Hispanic community to the board; two important attributes that are currently missing.
The remaining candidates aren't worth mentioning.
I encourage you to check out the Des Moines Register's editorial board interviews at http://tinyurl.com/m4d839
Also read reporter Melissa Walker's education blog at http://tinyurl.com/ncs6k2 to read up on the forums held for the candidates.
The attendance at the AMOS school board candidate forum last night was impressive. Too bad the forum didn't match the attendance. Of course, what can you expect when all 9 candidates agree with one another on all of the issues presented at the forum? For a detailed review of the questions and answers by the candidates, go to Register reporter Melissa Walker''s blog at http://tinyurl.com/m9d8v8.
The problem with forums, particularly the AMOS format which they have used for years, is that the questions are set up in such a manner that the candidates know what answer is expected of them. And in any case, who is going to disagree that there should be more after-school programs for middle school kids and SRO's should be more sensitive to race issues? Except for the opportunity to see the candidates and listen to how each one of them gives the same answer as the others, these forums are pretty much a waste of time.
Yes, the nine candidates for the Des Moines School Board are starting to show their differences, but it is not over the issues; there are no disagreements there. If anything can be gleaned from the Register's articles reporting on last week's candidate forums and the paper's candidate interviews (available online), it is that five candidates don't have any business being on the school board.
Zachary Toillion, the 2009 Lincoln High grad, has yet to attend a forum. That alone disqualifies him. If he doesn't have time to tell people about his candidacy it is doubtful he will give the job the attention it demands and deserves.
Timothy Halsted, who has also missed a forum, didn't know enough about the International Baccalaureate program to comment on it and says he has no experience with managing a budget other than his own. A candidate who has not bothered to look into a major school district initiative like the IB program is likewise disqualified.
This knocks out Felipe Gallardo and Thalia Sutton as well, as does their similar lack of experience with financial matters. Gallardo also says his most important issue is increasing parental involvement. That's nice. It is also the refuge of candidates who don't know the issues and think that bringing up parental involvement will garner votes. Parental involvement has been brought up by candidates in every school board race since the mid-1990's and it never seems to improve. Why? Because you can have all the programs, reaching out, and home visits you want, but when it comes right down to it, it is parents and parents alone who will increase parental involvement. Those who are not involved in their child's education aren't for one pathetic reason: They don't want to be. Programs won't change that.
Viola Perry is out because she also lacks financial experience. Her Register interview also lacked specifics. It is hard to tell from her answers what specifically she would do.
Now, if you want to take a flyer on one of these candidates, I would pick Thalia Sutton. She is the one challenger who showed some thoughtfulness in her Register interview. She is a thinker, someone who could grow into a very good school board member. Her main problem right now is her lack of experience in regards to not only school issues but the world at large. She graduated from the University of Iowa just this past spring and Roosevelt in 2005.
Candidates like Sutton and the 2009 high school grad, Toillion, are limited in their experience to their time in public school. But guess what? All of the candidates went to high school, the only advantage they have over the rest is a fresher memory.
Remember last year and the school board election that brought out a record number of voters (compared to recent years)? This year's campaign is the antithesis. We could see a record low turnout.
From what I can tell I would not be surprised if only 2 of the 9 candidates send out a direct mail campaign piece and only 3, maybe 4, have the money for yard signs. If they haven't raised the money by now, it's too late to order signs and almost too late to get a mailer to the printer. It takes two weeks to have yard signs prepared and almost as much time to prepare direct mailers, get them to the printer and then to the direct mail specialists. I doubt any of the challengers other than Buckton know this.
So what does this all mean? First, this is an incumbents' election (Boesen, Caldwell-Johnson, and Link). They know what needs to be done. They know where the votes are. Buckton probably does too. Name ID will be key.
Second, there are no issues driving people to the polls. From what I can tell from watching the candidate interviews with the Register's editorial board (available on line) there is not a dime's worth of difference in the viewpoints of the candidates. None of the challengers has separated herself or himself from the field, taken a position that distinguishes them from the others. Again, Buckton has a command of the issues that none of the others have, and that will show through to anyone paying attention. Add to that her support in the Hoover area and she is running as a quasi-incumbent.
Third, the Revenue Purpose Statement that is also on the ballot has not generated any opposition. All of the candidates support it. And why not, it simply asks the voters to give Des Moines its share of the sales tax dollars that will be collected state-wide in any event.
The bottom line is the incumbents plus Buckton should win. This is shaping up to be a return to the mean for school board elections, a return to those pre-2001 years before incumbents started to lose, campaign chests were small, and incumbents routinely elected.
I'll have more to say about the candidates later about the candidates, in addition to Buckton a couple of the challengers merit at least consideration.