Board Watch 6.21
Before we get into it - we want to wish Representative Rizzi and Superintendent Kamras a swift and complete recovery from Covid. A week later, the superintendent is still struggling to speak through coughs, and as Ms Rizzi emphasized, Covid is no joke! Mask up, stay on top of your vaccinations, and be safe out there - y’all!
Happy Thursday, fellow Board Watchers! I hope we all enjoyed the recent string of short-and-sweet school board meetings - because Tuesday night was a doozy.
True to the mission of Board Watch, I’m going to break down the meeting’s Top 5 Agenda items. But in full transparency, last night’s conversations played out like a game of pinball - repeatedly hitting on a variety of themes from budget restraints to personnel panic. To streamline the summary, I’ll narrow my focus on the following agenda items to illustrate one theme each (and highlight any relevant sentiments shared elsewhere in the minutes). Below, we discuss:
The School Board Retreat
Staffing
Facilities Condition Assessment (FCA)
Student Code of Responsible Ethics (SCORE)
Chromebooks
SCHOOL BOARD RETREAT
The first board action of the night is always adopting the agenda. This doesn’t sound very contentious, but Tuesday night it was.
Jonathan Young asked to add a discussion about the Arthur Ashe Center to the agenda - which he has successfully done at the 5/16 and 6/6 meetings. This time, multiple of his colleagues objected, citing agreements made at the board’s 6/11 “retreat.” This was the first - but not the last - reference to retreat discussions.
The Board’s retreat, if you’re wondering, is less a-quiet-cabin-in-the-woods, and more “spend 9AM-3PM in Huguenot High School's auditorium with the Council of Great City Schools, receiving professional development and governance training as required annually by our MOU.” (I’ll also note that the MOU specifies all members must attend, and Ms Gibson was absent.) The event was not live-streamed, but here’s what we gleaned from last nights discussions (plus a few other governance grievances shared throughout the evening):
Last minute additions to the agenda have to stop. We have seen School Board members lock arms against the trend of late-night meetings, and have to imagine that constantly adding discussion items exacerbates the length of these meetings.
Voting on last minute agenda items also has to stop. Some of the most controversial policies this School Board has passed have been introduced and voted on in the same sitting. The Board's own bylaws require a “two reads” for policy making - first to introduce the idea, and then a break between board meetings to allow for community feedback, and for Board members to do their own research and consideration before coming back at the “second read” to vote.
Responding to public comment is a direct violation of board policy. (watch) Rep Doerr explains this governance practice is to prevent favoritism: the appropriate place for the board to discuss concerns brought up in public comment is in new business.
The board is required to post minutes for all public meetings. When the board chair expressed her intention to keep the details of the board’s retreat private, Ms Lilly, the board attorney, intervened to provide legal counsel: only content that qualifies for closed meetings can be withheld from the public. The retreat’s clerk will compile notes, and facilitator presentations will be loaded.
Understand what is within the board’s authority. In a presentation about the district’s evolving, softening Covid response plan, Jonathan Young moved to vote down the mask guidance in the district’s health policy. (Watch) The administration was clear that they were not asking for the board’s approval - which they’ve not needed since the onset of the pandemic - and it does not appear to be within the board’s constitutionally-provided powers to intervene in this way. (§ 22.1-79)
Board members need to come to meetings prepared. Several new board members expressed support for a Facilities Condition Assessment since they originally voted against it on April 11. Evidently, they didn’t review or didn’t understand the service they were voting on. Now they want a professional facility analysis, but the funding for it has long since been reallocated to other board priorities. (We see this “whats-your-vote-again?” scenario play out later in the meeting, when Rizzi bemoans the persistent leaking roof at Swansboro, which was part of facility repairs she voted to defund back in November.) Responsible, timely governance requires that members “do their homework,” and solicit the advice of experts* before committing to policy they later regret. (*Page and Gibson aligned on this matter.)
STAFFING
We’ve gotten used to this report in recent months. Chief of staff, Michelle Hudascko, steps up to the podium and announces staff changes. Usually, this includes 10-20 resignations and a handful of: retirees, name changes, title changes, new hires, and, sadly, employee deaths. We expected these numbers to change this week, as contract renewals went out after last week’s special meeting, and surely some folks would turn away a new contract. (Such is the national trend, I'm afraid.)
But last night, our jaws were on the floor to learn that the number of resignations had exploded to 135. Based on the comments from representative White and others, at least 80 of these resignations are from teachers, and several critical leadership vacancies are expected at the principal and assistant principal level.
Public comment gives us some insight as to why. Their contracted hours are being disrespected, they need flexibility too, and the district’s testing requirements are unsatisfying for teachers and cruel for students. Claims of retaliation are rampant. There are real work culture concerns in the district. One community member asked: “Are teachers leaving the profession? Or has the profession left them?”
From an outsider perspective, it’s as though there is a Bermuda triangle between the staff on the front lines and the district's decision-makers. So much so that solutions to staff concerns appear to come too slow, too small, or not at all. (Dr Harris-Muhammed appears to hold a similar theory, attributing a Headstart conflict to a communication failure, and the exclusion of relevant parties.)
We also heard - again - that our facilities department is woefully understaffed. The department has been unable to work through their backlog of school repairs as fast as the Board would like (the consequences of which have made constant headlines in local media).
Staffing was also cited in the Headstart conversation, where “personnel challenges and absences” were to blame for the district’s non-compliance with program requirements. (Though she “regrets that we’re in this place,” the matter, we’re assured, is resolved.)
Still, this illustrates the constant need to recruit, recognize, and retain talent. The Board agrees:
We need exit survey data
We need to note any trends that suggest poor work culture at the school level
We also need to ask why staff stays. (That way our district can change “the bad”, and replicate “the good” work conditions that keep our teacher talent satisfied and motivated to work for RPS.)
(Some) leaders want the state to own their role in the staffing crisis. President of the Virginia Board of Education, Dan Gecker says:
“We cannot expect to change outcomes (or maintain previous levels of achievement) while starving the system of resources… And we cannot expect to attract and retain a high-quality cadre of teachers if we continually underpay the profession relative to other college graduates.”
For the sake of the 22,000 children enrolled in the district, I hope our local and state leaders can work out a solution, and that compensation-related efforts RPS discussed last week prove successful in the near-term.
FACILITIES CONDITION ASSESSMENT
This was a frustrating episode of Groundhog’s day. New Board Watchers should know: the Board instructed the superintendent to pursue a facilities assessment in the FY2021-22 budget cycle. He put out an RFP and brought the best candidate’s contract to the board in April. The board majority denied the contract, dismissing the need for an assessment at all.
Now, two months later - Reps White and Rizzi agree an assessment is necessary. (As noted above, the funding “ship has sailed” for any rapid action on this.) White misunderstood the original proposal - believing the service would provide a square footage count for our buildings, when actually the notation she cites explains that the assessment company charges a set fee per square footage. (Kamras explains.)
In any event, the board agrees that the “sticker shock” cost is an issue. (Watch) Still, they wrestle over the expense because - as Rep Page says: “dilapidated buildings have a direct correlation on learning,” teacher retention, and district enrollment. If we kick the can down the road because of the cost of this analysis, we’re going to pay a lot more to make repairs we poorly-prioritized, or didn’t even know about.
Throughout the meeting, the district’s meager budget was the elephant in the room:
It’s why RPS doesn’t have more resources allocated to priorities like trauma-informed care, which lacks support personnel to carry out the Board’s vision.
It’s why RPS struggles to provide a transportation plan that - among other things - doesn’t exhaust RPS’s preschool teachers.
It’s why there’s constant, unpopular, talk of consolidation. (In this meeting, concerns about potential consolidation of programming were shared during the RCEEA discussion.)
Much of the problems discussed in the meeting come down to the fact that we are a chronically underfunded school district. Here’s Kamras explaining why one beloved program cannot be funded, and the lengths to which he and others are going to source funding from outside the district: (Watch)
“When the board cut $6MM from my proposed budget - as you well know, and the board well knows - we had to make a number of cuts all across the organization. Unfortunately, as I shared with Dr Lucas from Policy Pathways, while I am a huge supporter of the program, it is a very expensive program that we cannot afford at this time. As she knows, we discussed seeking private philanthropic support for that program and I have endorsed her effort to do so. I have met with various individuals with her to support that work. I want to be very clear that there's no lack of support for this program, but in a world of very finite resources we have to make tough decisions - and this is a good program but this is a very expensive program, and this was part of that $6MM in cuts.”
It’s an unpleasant, unpopular, uncomfortable reality. But it is reality. RPS needs more if it wants to do more for kids. See again, the “starving school systems of resources” comment from state leaders.
We also got a glimpse into how the Board uses their budget authority to micromanage the administration. After suggesting pen and paper be provided in lieu of chromebook replacements, Vice Chair Kenya Gibson disclosed that she’d voted for $900k budget cuts to the district's textbook budget because she’d seen stacks of unused workbooks in schools. (watch) I don’t know the merits or details of that story, but I think of the staff and needs we’re struggling to find now, and I can’t help but wonder if: 1. withholding funds from an underfunded school district is an effective, constructive, or frankly moral strategy; or if, 2. this “starve-them-out” strategy can explain other funding deficits in the district.
SCORE
The Student Code of Responsible Ethics (SCORE) is a guide that defines appropriate student behavior, with the goal of ensuring every RPS student has access to a quality education in an environment that is conducive to teaching and learning. It is a “living document” that RPS leaders review and update annually (usually in June).
9th District Rep Nicole Jones is proud of the work the SCORE committee did this year. “A lot of work went into this” trauma-informed document, including input from herself, Rep White, teachers, parents, family liaisons, school safety personnel and division counselors and social workers. The students have a lot to gain from these updates - including, as Rep Rizzi appreciates, its advances in restorative justice practices.
Still, 4th District Rep Jonathan Young urged his board colleagues to reject the revisions, citing the absence of a district cell phone policy. He argues “the majority of our [secondary schools’] cultural problems originate because of cell phones”. The Vice Chair Gibson agreed, noting additional technology concerns:
“The use of technology in our schools has accelerated to a point that it is of critical concern. We now put a Chromebook in front of each of our students all day long.”
A similar scenario played out in 2019, when Gibson and Young voted against the SCORE revisions, which included important support for LGBTQ+ students. Gibson’s commitment to reforming discipline (2019), and Young’s commitment to address student cell phone use in schools (2022) are commendable. Still, delaying progress in the name of perfection can prevent the meaningful ways students can benefit from the diligent work of theBoard today. We see this theme also in the Chromebook distribution discussion, the delay to a facility analysis, and the (unsustained) objection to yielding their hiring authority, so that the administration could move quickly to hire principal(s?) before the upcoming school year. (Thanks to the board chair for providing important context and pertinent warnings related to that matter!)
CHROMEBOOKS
If you remember from the June 6 meeting, RPS released a chromebook audit that suggested the district had purchased 44,000 chromebooks - 20,000 of which were unassigned or unaccounted for. This got the board very uncomfortable, because their records indicated something like 29,000 chromebook purchases - and the audit findings threw up red flags of fraud and waste in the district.
The auditor said at the time: “The objective of the audit was to confirm the actual count of chromebooks that were purchased” - and how efficiently they were distributed and tracked when the district launched their 1 chromebook, 1 student (1:1) program as part of their pandemic response. (watch) He offered no evidence that RPS had purchased 44k, and a worried board sent him back to… confirm the actual count of purchased chromebooks.
Tuesday, changed the context of his findings: “The purpose of the audit in particular was a process driven audit. It was an operational audit, and follow-up questions turned this audit into a financial audit.” His new count, verified by the purchasing program AS400, clearly debunked his earlier claim that their inventory system, Tempest, was the “source of truth.”
Evidently, he also changed his scope:
The original audit scope considered “1:1” chromebooks purchased between July 1, 2019 - Sept 30, 2021 (One full virtual school year, plus the disrupted spring of 2020). This number was 44,000.
The auditors’ update includes “1:1” AND computer lab chromebook purchases from July 1, 2019 - TO DATE. That’s an extra year’s worth of chromebooks. This new (padded) number is 36,783.
Watch the two side-by-side and make your own conclusions. For me, this reads like a kid losing a chess match who says “just kidding, we’re playing checkers now!” At best, this audit was incomplete and published too soon. At worst, it was un/intentionally biased. It’s not entirely helpful to speculate which is true, so I’ll press on:
The focus pivots from Chromebook receipts and distribution, onto their assigned students:
Kids are “ripping up” Chromebooks - “but for some odd reason” we provide grace, when we should collect $282.
Vice Chair Gibson suggested that Chromebook access is a privilege. There’s value in replacing broken chromebooks with “analog” pen and paper. (This approach does seem at odds with her consistent advocacy for restorative justice practices in RPS.)
Rep Jones counters, in 2022, Chromebooks are a right. (Per the auditor: the 1:1 program is standard practice in Henrico and surrounding counties.)
Throughout the night, conversations turned this way. Can or should board members vote to improve student’s academic access, experience,and outcomes? Or will their objections to technology take focus? We also saw this mis-focus in the SCORE cellphone discussion: the Chair expressed a lengthy concern about students uploading fight videos to social media. She didn’t discuss the need to prevent those fights in the first place, or how the SCORE’s trauma-informed revisions offer such solutions.
Oof! That was a long one. If you’ve made it to the end, thank you for your engagement! Hopefully this recap spared you 5 hours of board dialogue. Still, as always, we encourage you to watch for yourself, and draw your own conclusions. Our scorecard goes out to newsletter subscribers tomorrow, but in the meantime, I’m going to close us out with a brief list of district developments to keep tabs on.
Things to Watch:
Wythe (Foundational work is planned for early August!)
Fox (RFP responses are due this week, and debris cleanout will begin shortly.)
Policy Committee (The board attended a 6/22 meeting to consider/clarify “security protocols.”)
Facilities Team Consultation (What does the repair backlog look like? Would they find an assessment helpful, and/or are they able to put together such a report in-house?)
