Some of the items on this week’s agenda:
We’ll discuss the proposed contract extension and pay raise for the superintendent. The superintendent’s current contract runs out at the end of June 2018. This proposal would extend that contract through June of 2019, and would provide sizable raises to the superintendent both this year and next year. Details here.
We’ll hear a report on several topics under the heading of “teaching and learning.” (See the attachments here.) Several of these reports deal with our students’ scores on the Iowa Assessments. Lots of data here, including data on the proficiency rates of the groups that are the particular focus of the district’s strategic plan: students receiving free and reduced-price lunch, students receiving special education services, and students who are English language learners. I’m still making my way through all the information.
We’ll also hear a report on the district’s science curriculum review. Details here. One issue that has generated some comment: Our current practice is to allow some high school freshmen to opt out of the introductory high school science course (Foundations of Science) and to take Biology instead. The science proposal would end that practice and require all ninth graders to take Foundations of Science (though they may be able to double up on science courses and simultaneously take Biology). Karen W. at the Education in Iowa blog critiques the proposal here.
We’ll also hear an update on special education.
At our work session, we’ll continue the process of thinking about how we’ll approach the September 2017 bond proposal and the long-term facilities master plan.
All that and more! The full agendas are here and here. Feel free to chime in with a comment about anything that catches your attention.
31 comments:
Our proficiency data for Black students is embarrassing. Until we address this with the urgency it deserves, our students suffer. Please be brave enough to bring this up as a separate issue from FRL--the numbers show that discussing FRL as a proxy for race is not sufficient.
The number of ELL students over the past 5 years looks like it has almost tripled. It says that proficient students will exit from the services and be monitored for two years. I haven't had a chance to look through all the data presented yet, but is there anywhere that shows historically how long students are in ELL before they become proficient? Are we accumulating ELL students because they are not becoming proficient or are there just that many more ELL students each year? Do we know what % of the ELL students are also FRL?
Is there a syllabus/textbook info around for Foundations of Science?
I agree with Karen W that advanced students should not be required to double up on science classes. I have two college-bound students at West. Their coursework at VAE and NCJH adequately prepared them for biology, chemistry, physics and engineering classes. Having to take a lower-level foundations class alongside biology would have been boring and robbed them of opportunities for arts or other electives that they individually found personally interesting and rewarding.
The superintendent contract and pay raise information provided seems a bit misleading. I don't know who came up with this but it appears to be supporting giving Murley a big raise. Some observations and comments:
1. The Des Moines district should not be included as a data point since their enrollment is almost 2.5 times that of iccsd and not similar. Including this skews the data and I would expect their superintendent compensation to be much greater than that of iccsd's superintendent.
2. Comparing this to the data shown by iowa.gov the ninth largest district by certified enrollment is Waukee with 9448 students I think there is a mistake where it compares West Des Moines as the ninth largest as it had 9012 and Council Bluffs had 9126 in 2015-2016. Either the data is wrong or they have shown West Des Moines where it should have been Waukee. Not sure how this changes the analysis but if they are wanting to get statistical the data needs to be correct.
3. I find the comment at the bottom "Note: to create a more realistic comparison where the contract did not specify an amount the ICCSD amount was used for the other districts." very interesting. It would be nice if they showed which areas exactly that this assumed amount was used since they are doing statistical analysis on it.
4. I would think that the superintendent experience should be very important metric when comparing the value of our superintendent to other districts. Again, interesting that this information is not shown. The average experience of the top nine districts is 16.2 years and Murely has 5 years as of the 2015-2016 data.
I would not be opposed to paying a superintendent what they are worth, but quite frankly I don't think Murley has earned a raise based on his performance since he has been here.
The third "Whereas" clause in the proposed new contract which states that the board believes a contract with Mr Murley ". . . generally improves the quality of its operation of the district.." is truly remarkable. Does anyone really believe this to be true?
And instead of calculating a salary based on what other superintendants receive shouldn't a superintendant's compensation be determined by what that particular superintendant accomplished? What if those other superintendants are just plain better than Murley? Maybe those other districts, for example, actually comply with the special education laws and don't have a retaliatory atmosphere?
It doesn't appear the Board's reading Ends Policy is being met and hasn't been met for the entirety of this superintendent's tenure. See grades 3-5 The district has put enormous focus on reading in the elementary grades for several years. Twain, Wood, Kirkwood and Lucas are still performing as poorly as ever. Does this board stand behind the superintendent's results? What're we gonna do when these kids have to be retained in 3rd grade because we haven't taught them how to read??
The ICCSD has been cited by the OCR for failure to educate ELL students and we show no progress in educating these children yet we are standing behind this superintendent's results? And want to give him a raise and tenure?
The ICCSD has been cited by the Iowa Dept of Ed for many many violations of Federal Law and data in this report suggests we are failing to educate these students in addition to violating their federal rights yet we are standing behind this superintendent's results?
The ICCSD locks children as young as kindergarten in dark plywood boxes with zero data to support that this practice is helping educate the children and a lot of data supporting the trauma and harm, yet you condone this superintendent's continued use of these archaic boxes in our schools and want to reward him with a raise?
The ICCSD neglected to include data for our newly constructed Alexander (p 24). Is this APR data reliable??
The ICCSD received over 5mil in drop out prevention funds for 2015/16 in addition to all of the SAVE tax monies yet the APR for an unknown reason lists on several pages the 14/15 drop out rate (not the 205-16) and not disaggregated by race/ethnicity/grade//academic level (sped/ELP/reg ed)/gender). The further I read into this report the less reliable it appears to be. The board considers this good stewardship of the monies they have been granted?
The ICCSD identified and served less homeless students in 15-16 than in prior years (APR) yet the number of homeless children and youth nationwide is increasingly dramatically. Looks like the superintendent is able to control the homeless budget by firing the liaison willing to advocate for the students' interests. The board is rewarding this retaliatory yet budget conscious behavior.
So many of our district's black and brown, ELL, and SPED children are not making adequate progress. This has been going on for the entirety of this superintendent's watch. I wonder what a poor performance review would look like? So you are going to give him a big raise and benefits and call it good?
I don't trust the data in this report. Do you? From the standpoint of reading it through quickly, I found a lot of errors.
I also agree with Karen W. Many students shouldn't have to take Foundations of Science and Biology as 9th graders. We have a lot of bored junior high students who are not academically challenged already.
Lynch says Murley had a 360 review. Were parents involved in this? The state special ed report was bad. Thank you for voting against the raise and against extending his contract. Unreal the motion to give him a raise passed.
Chris, thank you for taking the time to explain your position to the community last night on why you were voting against Murley's contract. Kudos to Phil and Lori as well. What a slap in the face to those special education families to have Lynch sit up there and say that Murley has had a great year. And shame on the other's for approving it as well. On a separate note, Chris Lynch's behavior at the board table is completely unacceptable. The fact that we allow bullying from our school board president at the board table is ridiculous and embarrassing.
I agree with KJ at 10.32. The animosity of the 4 person majority against the 3 person minority was obvious. And I thought Kirschling's lecture was even more embarassing than Lynch's conduct. Long term, if the bond passes the board is going to have to decide what projects get funded, the timing of the projects, and what projects get deleted. No way should such a dysfunctional board be trusted with that authority. Vote no instead.
Chris, I wanted to thank you for standing up and voicing your concerns about Superintendent Murley's contract renewal last night. You were insightful and raised questions that needed to be asked. I have deep concerns about the contract clause that mandates that all emails mentioning him, especially if they are critical, should be forwarded to him. How can an employee demand that of his employer? I don't understand how this doesn't contribute to the retaliatory culture that our district has often been accused of. I, too, agree with KJ. As a Special Education parent, hearing that there is money for an unprecedented raise for our administrator (who has done nothing to reach out to Special Education families or has been accountable for state violations), but not funds for better para and teacher salaries is, indeed, a slap in the face. I am also very concerned to see that Chris Lynch, on posted Board Agendas, has warned people who wish to make a comment in public could be subject to legal action if they say anything "inflammatory". I don't see how this encourages healthy public discussion and discourse at all. Is that even legal?
Anon at 4:34
Where is Chris Lynch making these comments? I would like to read them.
Here is his statement from the Board Agendas. It's under "Welcome, President Lynch". http://www.boarddocs.com/ia/iccsd/Board.nsf/Public
If parents email certain board members with concerns regarding administrative matters, we get this reminder. It's very intimidating.
Here is what Chris Lynch's statement is -
" Please remember you are making comments in a public meeting. Should you make comments that the subject of the comments considers to be inflammatory or libelous, you, as an individual, may be subject to legal action brought by the subject of your comments. "
Wait, what's this about emails critical of Murley? Can we have the text of that clause, please?
I think this is what someone is referring to:
5. CRITICISMS, COMPLAINTS AND SUGGESTIONS.
The Board, individually and collectively, shall promptly refer in writing all
substantive criticisms, complaints and suggestions, regardless of the source, called
to the Board’s attention to the Superintendent for study and appropriate action or
recommendation. The Superintendent shall promptly investigate such matters and
shall periodically inform the Board of the results or status of such matters.
This does seem kind of odd to have in the contract, but maybe it is common language.
I have never seen such language before, and if I were on the Board I'd be concerned about the potential for lawsuits. You've just opened the door wide to retaliation without any tracking or accountability whatsoever. There is no mechanism here for parents, students, or community members to criticize Murley while remaining anonymous. No vulnerable person can speak up, now. There is no public ability now to talk with Board members in confidence about sensitive issues. There is no mention of the public's ability to see what criticisms etc. Murley is investigating nor what action has been taken. There is no requirement that Murley address each response to each such criticism etc. publicly. This is handing Murley criticism for him to pick through and, unaccountably, do whatever he will about each one -- or nothing at all. You've created a little tyrant here.
This is just waiting for a good test case, and I wonder what ICLU and Roxanne would have to say about it.
Go on, then, send this right along to Steve. You're now contractually obliged.
Special Education parents don't email the board often because we know our emails will be forwarded to the Superintendent. We don't speak publicly because we are warned that we are opening ourselves up to legal action if we are openly critical of administrators. We can't show up to listening posts with board members because specialized childcare is impossible to find let alone afford. Special Education students have so much potential but so much more to lose and no one is really talking about how they fall behind in proficiency alongside other populations - which is a whole other mess entirely. All of our children have the right to grow academically and be encouraged just as much as anyone else. Parents feel very powerless and lost right now.
I feel sorry for special ed parents. If you raise your concern it gets sent to the superintendant. When you have been proven to have a retaliatory culture against complainants, that is the last place it should go.
This clause in the contract is absolutely ridiculous. I am curious how this clause gets added to the contract in the first place? Does Murley request that it be added or does the board (Lynch) add it on their own? I don't know what Murley has on Lynch or if they have some kind of side deal worked out but it must be pretty good. Allowing Murley to get away with what he has while on the iccsd's dime is borderline criminal. All the while Lynch stands beside Murley like his personal cheerleader praising him like he is his god and covering for all of his incompetencies. It just doesn't make sense to me at all. I have pretty much given up on caring anymore like many of us have. I guess Lynch is getting what he wants by silencing everyone. I do know that I will never vote for the GO bond as long as Stevie and Lynch are running the show as I just don't trust them and what they will do with all that money and the power has gone to their head. This district aflame.
Better send all these things to Steve. This guy might be getting a lot of mail.
I think, though, that they shouldn't *just* be sent to Steve. I think they should be copied to someone on a state board. I don't see anything in the language that says that that can't happen.
Possibly, in redacted form, they should also be sent to the press.
You're also going to have to make people aware, somehow, that this is a brand new breed of communication with an elected official, and there is no reasonable expectation of confidentiality in emailing you. I would also suggest language for anonymizing the particular concerns.
Same language was in his last contact and is in other Superintendent contacts. Not saying it's right ...just pointing that out. So, the question I would have before jumping down a conspiracy rabbit hole is whether there is an alternative and perhaps beneficial reason it's there.
Beneficial to whom, anon 5:12?
Also, please tell, how do you know that this language is in other supe contracts?
I vaguely recall the last board commenting that his contract is based on some standard form contract from the association of school boards.
I understand the reason why there would be a chain of command clause in the Superintendent's Contract but it needs to be redefined to allow the public to express concerns regarding his conduct without breaching confidentiality and redirecting that concern to the Superintendent. I don't think that's what it's there for, but that's what ends up happening given the wording in the contract. It would be better for the "retaliatory climate" in our district if the clause was re-written (and allowed to be openly discussed by the board without the Board President pushing everyone to vote on the matter without careful consideration). Formal complaints and state investigations shouldn't be the only way.
I agree. And in the meantime, with personal information redacted, every such communication going to Steve without the critic's express consent should also go to an interested state-level administrator and the press. My guess is that the wording will change faster if that happens. In fact I will happily go find out which state admins should be on the cc list.
Anon 9:06, a vague recollection of something boilerplate his contract is based on is not the same thing as "this language is in other superintendent contracts". Of course his contract is based on some boilerplate. Almost every contract you meet is based on boilerplate. Boilerplate language is amended to suit individuals and their circumstances.
If you have any more specific knowledge of this language's existence in other supe contracts, by all means, let us know.
Post a Comment