NARCISSE WEEKLY REPORT

BOARD MEETING: Des Moines Public School District

LOCATION: 1800 Grand Avenue

Date: September 27, 2007

MY ROLE AS A CONDUIT

One of my primary goals as a board member is to serve as a conduit for the free flow of information. The Des Moines School District and its Board of Directors maintain the most closed relationship with its public of any local governmental entity in Iowa.

I have spoken to countless teachers, parents and residents who have been quickly dismissed by either District administration or by the school board, as if we had no right to ask questions or expect a response.  This is unacceptable.

For that reason I have made it a top priority to ask your questions since I am now a board member. I do ask that you understand I still may not get answers to many questions. In addition, when I pose questions to the administration I will identify what I feel is the priority order because I recognize they have many challenging and complex duties to perform, too.

MY EMAIL TO DR. SEBRING

In my initial email I ask Dr. Sebring three questions. The first has to do with the shortage of instructional materials for our District teachers. The other two seek background information we really should have been provided as Board members in compliance with Series 200 Code 220 of our policies and procedures.

1. It has been brought to my attention that teachers are sharing instructional manuals due to a shortage of resources. How many more manuals do we need and what would the cost be to acquire them and the turn around time to receive them? Highest priority. This also should be pretty easy to determine.

2. A list of the property holdings of the district, especially the land and buildings we own and their commercial value, or at least their insured value if we have no commercial determination. Second highest priority. If the district doesn't have a list I'd appreciate knowing how long it will take to generate this.

3. A breakdown of the money generated at the building level by socio-economic category and circumstance, and how much we spend per pupil per building. I just need to know the time table it will take to generate this information.

THE EXCHANGE WITH DR. SEBRING:

The following is the response I received from Dr. Sebring and my responses to her responses:

REGARDING THE SHORTAGE OF INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS

Dr. Nancy Sebring: In regard to your questions: I assume you are talking about the new reading materials. We are working feverishly (and have been since July) to get the new reading materials to all of the schools. Nearly all materials are in place with the exception of a few classrooms. We are monitoring our class sizes daily in every elementary school, and trying to find ways to add teachers in the highest priority areas. Some teachers were added this week. Thus, the students have their materials, but we need to order additional teachers manuals for those new classrooms. We submitted a second round of orders for special education teachers in areas where we had shortages, and we should be receiving those materials very soon. Finally, there are some materials on back-order from the company, and they update us daily on the status of the orders. Distributing $2.5 million worth of literacy materials is a monumental task. Our employees have done a fabulous job in getting these materials to the classrooms. In fact, JoEllen Latham, Literacy Director and I provided lunch to our employees last week to show our appreciation for their efforts. All orders are processed through our IFAS system, and all then all materials are inventoried through Central Stores. We have daily progress monitoring of the distribution. I would respectfully inform you that ordering and distributing materials, as well as tracking back orders and change orders for 60 schools, hundreds of teachers (including ESL teachers, preschool teachers, G/T teachers and special education teacher)s is not a quick or easy task. Finally, it has nothing to do with resources. The Board of Education approved the purchase of the materials last spring, and we have the resources to pay for all of the materials needed.

Jonathan Narcisse: I have always enjoyed a very strong relationship with teachers. That relationship has grown even stronger since about 9:00 p.m. September 11. As they share concerns with me I will pass them on to you, as appropriate. Here, the essential concern expressed to me was that when the school year began, and even as of today, they do not each have instructional materials.

Two of our core mandates as Board members, as defined in Series 200 Code 220, as again approved by the Des Moines School Board on September 11, 2007, are relevant here. The first is the delegation of the executive function. The second is the evaluative function. If a lack of resources is not the cause of the delay in teachers receiving instructional material then is the delay due to a lack of planning, the rushed implementation of a new curriculum or a breakdown on the part of our supplier?

Adequately equipping instructors by the start of the school year with educational materials, plus giving them the time to master them, is foundational to the effective implementation of our education program. Policy is the province of the Board. The execution of our policies and academic program is the responsibility of the superintendent and the staff. Then we are charged to evaluate how it turned out.

I am curious why such an essential component - one that will impact areas from our test scores to the pace of student learning -- is still not completed? Who dropped the ball?

REGARDING THE DISTRICT'S PROERTY VALUES

Dr. Nancy Sebring: We have information regarding all of the district properties, land, etc. Most don’t have a “commercial value” established, as we have no intent to ever sell them. We are in the process of getting appraisals of Casady, Wallace, Adams and Douglas. We received the results of an appraisal of Central Campus in late August. This information will be provided to all Board members in an upcoming work session. The Board will have to make decisions on whether we want to try to sell, lease or keep these assets. Bill Good, our C.O.O. and I will be providing more information in the coming weeks.

Jonathan Narcisse: I appreciate that the administration has no intention of selling most of the District's properties. The recent traditions of suddenly announced decisions by the Board, including sudden closures and inadequately documented action oriented meetings, coupled with the board having the ultimate power and responsibility for District property, as stated in Series 200 Code 220, means we need certain information since the ultimate decision lies with us, not District staff.

At the very least what are our properties insured for? Beyond that does the acquisition of an appraisal of Central Campus confirm the intention of the District to sell the property. If so what is the time table for the disposing of this property and what are the recommended procedures for disposing of it?

Will we seek the highest bidder? Have we already been approached by an interested party who wants to acquire 1800 Grand Avenue and if so is there an offer on the table?

Has the Board, in a previous action, determined Central Campus is to be sold? If so, at what meeting did they decide to sell the property and when can I get a copy of those minutes? If not, then what was the process utilized, by District staff, to determine that an appraisal of 1800 Grand Avenue was needed?

Finally it is vital that we have information in a timely manner. Even after our first meeting I have concerns about the rushed nature of how this board has done business. In the rush to resolve the election of officers we cast a secret ballot. The intent is not relevant. The outcome was a clear violation of state law and a public chastisement by a former Drake professor, the local head of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Des Moines Register Editorial Board and countless others that expect this Board and administration to comply with state law and our code.

It is equally troubling that we did not receive the 300 page policy and procedures document yet were expected to, as did Mrs. Link, approve it sight unseen. This is not an acceptable way to do business especially in the post CIETC era. I do not want to have to vote on major land deals without notice, public input and Board deliberation.

REGARDING PER PUPIL REVENUES & EXPENDITURES AT THE BUILDING LEVEL

Dr. Nancy Sebring: Our business services department has the information regarding the expenditures, per pupil, for each school in the district. There are only two categories of “socio-economic category”; those who qualify for free or reduced lunch, and those who don’t. Because we have a large number of students who do qualify for free and reduced lunch, we are eligible for different “pots” of federal funds. Those of course can only be spent on the students/schools who qualify. Thus, a general rule of thumb is that the higher the number of free/reduced lunch students in a building, the more resources there are available for that building. This is an over-simplification, but we will provide more in-depth answers to your questions about school finance in an upcoming New Member Orientation session (I believe it’s on Sept. 27?). Of course, schools like Orchard Place, Smouse and Ruby Van Meter have the highest cost per pupil, but also generate “weighted” funds for the district. When you ask about “spending per pupil per building” do you mean all costs, which would include utilities, etc. or costs for instructional programs, which would include teachers, counselors, administrators, materials, computers, etc. Some schools differ in the amount of things available for students (like computers) because their site-based counsels share in the decision-making on the use of resources. We will talk about this in more depth at the orientation meetings. It will be important to learn this information, since our budget planning for the next year will begin in November.

Jonathan Narcisse: My question, Dr. Sebring, was about socio-economic status and circumstance. Regarding only two categories of socio-economic status I am confused. When I look at our socio-economic data I see categories like race and English Language Learners. Also by circumstance I find we maintain special education data.

Now if I am wrong about race, for example, being a socio-economic category, can you expand the provided information to include breakdowns by race, special education enrollment and English Language Learner status?

As for spending at the building level it will help to have a breakdown both by what is directly spent at the classroom level and what is spent directly at the building level. What I don't want to see in this circumstance are District costs stretched out over our many schools. For the sake of insight I would like to know how much of spending takes place at the site level and how much at the District level.

Also, having this information will either confirm or dispel a wide spread perception out there. Lacking the resources of my opponents to do mass mailings and purchase lots of advertising, I had to rely on a very grassroots, groundpounding approach to getting elected. This involved going to schools, senior centers, churches and knocking on countless doors. I even stopped people in public settings like at the grocery store and asked them their opinions. This approach, I believe, contributed to me having a very diverse geographic base of support as broken down in the Register's analysis following the election.

There is a split in this town Dr. Sebring. It is deep and heart felt. It is perceived one side of town gets their students taken care of and the rest don't. I am not accepting this portrayal as fact. Instead I would like to examine the hard data and then, and only then, form my opinion. This seems the responsible approach to addressing such a widespread concern as articulated to me both in 2005 and 2007.

As for being prepared for November, I can assure you, I will be.

REGARDING KEEPING THE BOARD CHAIR IN THE LOOP

Dr. Nancy Sebring: It is my practice to copy the Board chairperson on all communication with Board members, and at his discretion, he may chose to share it with other Board members. This keeps the communication open and transparent, and also allows the Board chair to monitor issues of concern of the other Board members.

Jonathan Narcisse: Absolutely. I would expect no less from our President and I hope he will, likewise, share the concerns of other Board members with all of us. That is also why many of my communications, when I am sharing constituent concerns, will be included in my Weekly Report or other communication vehicles I'll be using during my tenure in office, such as my website.

REGARDING KEEPING TRACK OF QUESTIONS

Dr. Nancy Sebring: Please keep track of your questions. As we provide monitoring reports throughout the year, we will cover, in depth, many topics. You can also make suggestions as to the topics you would like addressed in a work session (they are typically scheduled for the second BOE meeting of the month.) Please forward those suggestions to Dick. Some of the information used in the monitoring process is available at only certain times of the year therefore any data we would provide prior to that time would be the previous year’s data. Of course a great deal of budget information, student achievement data and policy information is available on our district website.

Jonathan Narcisse: Thank you for the suggestion. I will keep track of my inquiries. I do appreciate you pointing me to the District's website. That is where I found the 300 page policy and procedure manual, downloaded and cut and pasted it. I have also read everything on the District's website and I have two concerns. The first is outdated information or information that is inconsistent with other information reported by the District. As an outsider coming in how am I to know which is accurate and which is inaccurate without inquiring?

The second is that much of the data, particularly student achievement data on the website does not accurately document where our students are since it does not provide base line data. Enrollment alignment will go a ways in correcting this but ultimately we need multiple perspectives on data to get a full picture of student achievement and the website simply doesn't address this.

For example graduation data should be presented in three or four ways. The best way to get a picture is to go from 8th grade through 12th grade. A method I recommended to this District. A method this District refused to use but, in my research on your tenure in Colorado, discovered you did utilize. Another method would look at a strict 9th grade to 12th grade model. Another method would track students through completion. Another would track the incoming 9th grade class through 12th grade. Another might even report completion and attrition rates to avoid the nonsense of politically crafted definitions of graduation and drop out.

Regardless the website has limitations particularly when it comes to us, as Board members, having the information to fulfill our Series 200 Code 220 and Code 221 mandates.

PRESIDENT MURPHY RESPONDS TO MY QUESTIONS

I know the feeling of being a new board member after having gone through a campaign. People express so many concerns to us and we feel that we need to address each one of those concerns immediately. I was the same way as a new board member. Over time I learned that the information I wanted would eventually come when staff had time to prepare it and that is usually done cyclically. I have learned that our staff is extremely busy and they want to make sure that we are informed but they cannot do this one at a time. They prefer to inform us during board meetings while we are all there receiving and discussing the same information. I also prefer it that way and as president I want to make sure it happens that way.

As you know, I have been receiving copies of this thread of email regarding Dr. Sebring's request to discuss the school district with you during coffee or lunch. It is much easier to clarify requests or to answer questions personally that it is with email. Reading this thread, I believe a personal discussion over coffee lunch would be more productive and a better use of Dr. Sebring's time. I am concerned that she might be spending too much time with this thread of email and she has too many other obligations to our students, teachers, parents, communities, organizations, and the rest of the board.

MR. MURPHY EXPLAINS OUR ROLE AS BOARD MEMBERS

As board members, we all receive questions and concerns about district procedures. However we are responsible for policies. The staff is responsible for procedures. Board members should refer people to the appropriate staff member regarding their concerns. When employees have concerns, they have to work them through the chain of responsibility. It is our responsibility to direct them there.

We evaluate the work of the superintendent. The superintendent evaluates the work of staff. We are in the process of setting goals for the superintendent and plan to hold her accountable for those goals (Policy Governance--Ends Statements.)

I am going to ask you to wait until you meet with Nancy and other staff for orientation before making any more requests. If the first orientation is unsatisfactory we can schedule more. I am sharing this email with all board members as a reminder to them as well. Thanks for your concerns and your passion for our schools.

MY RESPONSE TO PRESIDENT MURPHY

With all due respect, at our first Board meeting on September 18 six board members passed a 300 page policy document they either haven't read or have ignored. I have also reviewed the minutes from the 2004-05 school year through the current minutes and this board and district has ignored major academic concerns, consistently ignored its own policies and procedures, conducted major business outside of the public view and made questionable decisions like hiring a sitting board member to a powerful executive position without an acceptable public explanation or defense.

RECEIVING INFORMATION

As a board member I believe that it is entirely appropriate -- indeed required -- for me to ask questions about what I hear from teachers and parents.  What is inappropriate is that a new curriculum was dropped in the lap of our teachers without notice, and that teachers are having to share instructional material they do not receive from the schools..

To ask why this happened is absolutely consistent with our charge under Section 220 of the Board Policies. The question is why didn't the Board ask that question on September 4 or September 18?

The Board has found the time to discuss No Child Left Behind and it has recognized Culinary Art students but it has not discussed adequately why our teachers were not adequately equipped with instructional materials to teach a newly introduced curriculum. Why is that?

WAITING FOR INFORMATION

You have asked me to wait for information I should have been provided right after I was elected, before ever sitting on the Board. I can not speak for the other Board members but I take my charge from the voters very seriously and have worked hard to equip myself to the task. It is the reason I have read every word on our website, reviewed past minutes, examined past District documents and major reports we invested in such as the "Re-Inventing High School" report of the Urban Education Network.

At the same time this current board and administration did not even think it appropriate for new members to be provided a copy of our 300 page policies and procedures before approving them.

This record does not inspire confidence that the board is even interested in engaging the major academic concerns facing this district. Issues such as ending social promotion, aligning enrollment dates, the desegregation plan and others that shape the very academic outcome of our students have never appeared before a member of our current Board as items to be acted on.

WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE?

With that legacy why should I now believe this board will be concerned. You have even publically demonstrated your contempt for data and my reliance on it, as evidenced in the Roosevelt public hearing held this June. You also failed to share with your fellow board members and the public the personal confirmation you and Mrs. Woods received from Dr. Witherspoon that graduation data was infact inaccurate, that my assertions all along were true and that he stood in error.

While this was a major revelation made before you and two other board members, you failed to disclose the outcomes of this meeting to the general public or in a formal board meeting.

As for staff getting a response to their core questions not only have they not been responded to, but a number fear, consequences if they question too "vigorously" the current administration. Already we've lost a lot of good teachers this past year. Why shouldn't they be able to turn to me as their advocate and shield?

I HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE

I have no reason to believe this board intends for me to ask relevant questions Mr. Murphy. I have no reason to believe as President of the Board you intend to allow me in meetings to engage in serious discourse. You, afterall, remained silent as a secret ballot was cast to elect officers. I was not allowed to speak. You further supported denying debate on passage of our 300 page policy and procedure document despite knowing we had never been provided the document and that Patty Link had never seen the document as of the vote.

Your position was clear. We were expected to approve this sight unseen. Your publically cast vote confirms that assertion. So why should I have confidence in the process you propose?

I know what my role is as board member. I know what my charge is by code and I know what the expectation of those whom elected me are. I cannot compel answers but I will expect to be equipped with the information I need to cast informed votes. Something new board members, obvioulsly, are not expected to do.

In the post-CIETC era should I be expected to approach my service on the board any differently?

Striving for transparency and accountability in the governance of the Des Moines School District...and excellence in achievement.

Jonathan R. Narcisse

P.S. In last weeks'  article on Rice field Richard Clark, the Des Moines City Manager, states the Des Moines School District is going to pay for a third of the improvements. Mr. Clark does not lightly make comments and is a very able, credible and accountable professional.

As the District's liaison and advisor on the Rice land deal has an arrangement been made? Why would he say that if a conversation with District officials has not taken place?

Or was the Register in error?