20
Aug
2002
I am happy to report that the parents of students from Grant and Johnson elementary schools are appealing the Iowa Department of Education's administrative law judge's decision to uphold the closings of the two facilities.
The parents decided to move forward with the appeal on the grounds that administrative law judge Susan Anderson did not consider the evidence. In fact, she claims in her written ruling that "no evidence was presented" that the school board had adopted its 1980 policy for closing schools, which is at the heart of this legal matter.
According to the parents' brief, "This is absolutely false." And so it is. Not only did the parents present evidence, it was unrebutted by Superintendent Jim Blanche during his testimony. The parents' evidence consisted of school-district documents that include the policy's intent and date of adoption, as well as its specific procedures for closing schools. The district ignored this policy in its decision to close Grant and Johnson. The parents contend that by ignoring its own policy, the district violated due process. In their appeal, the parents asked the Iowa Department of Education to reverse the district's decision and keep the schools open.
The district is claiming that the policy was not an official one because it was not placed in its Policies & Procedures Manual. That is like saying, for example, that because a law on aggravated assault was not in the county courthouse law record, it isn't a law and does not need to be adhered to. Anyone in the county can commit aggravated assault without fear of arrest. The district claims that just because it is referred to as a policy and documented as such doesn't make it so. That is the basic rationale behind its defense. The district even attempts to dismiss as irrelevant eyewitness testimony by one of its own board members that the policy was included in a board packet because it wasn't in the packet on January 28, 2002, when the board officially ruled to close the schools. This argument shouldn't stand up for 12-year-olds, let alone a governing body of educators.
Documents are tangible evidence. There is no mistaking that the district clearly considered its procedural guidelines for closing schools as a policy, and it was confirmed by the 1980 district secretary that it was adopted as a policy in 1980. March 10, 1980, to be exact.
That the administrative law judge could miss this evidence is supremely negligent. It will now be up to the entire Board of Education to decide the matter. Hopefully, the board's members won't insist on protecting their own. If the public were to read the briefs, just in terms of the law, forgetting for a moment the many other compelling merits of the parents' case, there can be no result other than overturning Anderson's decision.
When a policy is formally adopted, it must be formally repealed. Otherwise the agency (in this case the school district) is bound by the terms of the policy. The policy for closing schools strictly dictates the procedures the district must follow, using language such as "shall" as the imperative. It doesn't use "suggest" or "recommend."
Adopting policies falls under the umbrella of administrative procedure and is governed by Iowa Code. The district cannot be allowed to ignore it. To do so sends the message that it is not accountable to the law.
School-Board Election Presents Major Opportunity
This is a critical time in Davenport's history, when the people's voice has never mattered more. The upcoming school-board election on September 10 is a great opportunity for parents, educators, and taxpayers to demand a new school board that has a healthy skepticism toward the administration and is responsive to the community. The old way of doing school-district business in Davenport has got to end. If we ever hope to compete as a top-tier city in the Midwest, we had better free ourselves from the self-serving protocol that defines the current school board and administration. We currently have five failing schools in our district. We should have zero. We are victims of school boards that govern without the knowledge or necessary data required to make sound financial and educational decisions.
Luckily, Davenport citizens have a slate of candidates to choose from. Remember, the school board has authority over approximately $120 million of our tax dollars. Running against three-year-term incumbent Steve Imming are Alan Guard, Paul Hofinga, and Ann Losasso. Running for Pat Zamora's and Mavis Lee's one-year-term seats are Paul Holcomb, Dan Portes, and Bonnie Beachman. There are three public forums at which citizens can learn about the candidates and their positions on the critical issues that will impact all Davenport residents, not just students and their families. (One such issue is closing all inner-city schools and building a mega-school north of town. This will impact property values, neighborhood stability, and much more. There are also numerous studies that mega-schools perform miserably in terms of education compared to smaller neighborhood schools.)
The first public forum is Wednesday, August 21, 7 p.m., CASI, 1035 West Kimberly Road. The second is Tuesday, August 27, 6 p.m., Friendly House, 1221 Myrtle Street. The third takes place Thursday, September 5, 7 p.m., United Neighbors, 808 Harrison Street.
Meanwhile, the administration is establishing a Local School Advisory Committee to oversee the creation of new boundaries, and how the remaining $17 million of the overall $80 million of local sales-tax option funds should be spent. Any interested individuals should request to be a committee member by calling the school-district administration office at 336-5083. At the recent August Committee of the Whole meeting, it was discussed that if the district is going to build a new northeast elementary school, it had better start reserving some of this remaining funding. This on the heels of closing two schools because they had no funds.
The district's financial crisis, which amounts to approximates $4 million, is somewhat disingenuous when considering that property-value increases contributed an additional $6 million in new revenues to the district.
Finally, the new Leave No Child Behind Act stipulates that if a school is failing, parents can elect to send their children to any school of their choice, and the district must provide transportation by setting aside 5 percent of its revenue from the state for this purpose. Reports have the district denying transfer requests, or refusing transportation to those whose requests were granted, in direct defiance of the new law. The district claims the schools are full and cannot accept any more students. If this is the case, then where is the justification for closing two schools, especially in a time of declining enrollments? Something is definitely amiss in Dodge. A new school board appears to be the only solution. So far, the Department of Education has been part of the problem as well. The Board of Education will meet on September 12-13, when a decision is expected.
The parents decided to move forward with the appeal on the grounds that administrative law judge Susan Anderson did not consider the evidence. In fact, she claims in her written ruling that "no evidence was presented" that the school board had adopted its 1980 policy for closing schools, which is at the heart of this legal matter.
According to the parents' brief, "This is absolutely false." And so it is. Not only did the parents present evidence, it was unrebutted by Superintendent Jim Blanche during his testimony. The parents' evidence consisted of school-district documents that include the policy's intent and date of adoption, as well as its specific procedures for closing schools. The district ignored this policy in its decision to close Grant and Johnson. The parents contend that by ignoring its own policy, the district violated due process. In their appeal, the parents asked the Iowa Department of Education to reverse the district's decision and keep the schools open.
The district is claiming that the policy was not an official one because it was not placed in its Policies & Procedures Manual. That is like saying, for example, that because a law on aggravated assault was not in the county courthouse law record, it isn't a law and does not need to be adhered to. Anyone in the county can commit aggravated assault without fear of arrest. The district claims that just because it is referred to as a policy and documented as such doesn't make it so. That is the basic rationale behind its defense. The district even attempts to dismiss as irrelevant eyewitness testimony by one of its own board members that the policy was included in a board packet because it wasn't in the packet on January 28, 2002, when the board officially ruled to close the schools. This argument shouldn't stand up for 12-year-olds, let alone a governing body of educators.
Documents are tangible evidence. There is no mistaking that the district clearly considered its procedural guidelines for closing schools as a policy, and it was confirmed by the 1980 district secretary that it was adopted as a policy in 1980. March 10, 1980, to be exact.
That the administrative law judge could miss this evidence is supremely negligent. It will now be up to the entire Board of Education to decide the matter. Hopefully, the board's members won't insist on protecting their own. If the public were to read the briefs, just in terms of the law, forgetting for a moment the many other compelling merits of the parents' case, there can be no result other than overturning Anderson's decision.
When a policy is formally adopted, it must be formally repealed. Otherwise the agency (in this case the school district) is bound by the terms of the policy. The policy for closing schools strictly dictates the procedures the district must follow, using language such as "shall" as the imperative. It doesn't use "suggest" or "recommend."
Adopting policies falls under the umbrella of administrative procedure and is governed by Iowa Code. The district cannot be allowed to ignore it. To do so sends the message that it is not accountable to the law.
School-Board Election Presents Major Opportunity
This is a critical time in Davenport's history, when the people's voice has never mattered more. The upcoming school-board election on September 10 is a great opportunity for parents, educators, and taxpayers to demand a new school board that has a healthy skepticism toward the administration and is responsive to the community. The old way of doing school-district business in Davenport has got to end. If we ever hope to compete as a top-tier city in the Midwest, we had better free ourselves from the self-serving protocol that defines the current school board and administration. We currently have five failing schools in our district. We should have zero. We are victims of school boards that govern without the knowledge or necessary data required to make sound financial and educational decisions.
Luckily, Davenport citizens have a slate of candidates to choose from. Remember, the school board has authority over approximately $120 million of our tax dollars. Running against three-year-term incumbent Steve Imming are Alan Guard, Paul Hofinga, and Ann Losasso. Running for Pat Zamora's and Mavis Lee's one-year-term seats are Paul Holcomb, Dan Portes, and Bonnie Beachman. There are three public forums at which citizens can learn about the candidates and their positions on the critical issues that will impact all Davenport residents, not just students and their families. (One such issue is closing all inner-city schools and building a mega-school north of town. This will impact property values, neighborhood stability, and much more. There are also numerous studies that mega-schools perform miserably in terms of education compared to smaller neighborhood schools.)
The first public forum is Wednesday, August 21, 7 p.m., CASI, 1035 West Kimberly Road. The second is Tuesday, August 27, 6 p.m., Friendly House, 1221 Myrtle Street. The third takes place Thursday, September 5, 7 p.m., United Neighbors, 808 Harrison Street.
Meanwhile, the administration is establishing a Local School Advisory Committee to oversee the creation of new boundaries, and how the remaining $17 million of the overall $80 million of local sales-tax option funds should be spent. Any interested individuals should request to be a committee member by calling the school-district administration office at 336-5083. At the recent August Committee of the Whole meeting, it was discussed that if the district is going to build a new northeast elementary school, it had better start reserving some of this remaining funding. This on the heels of closing two schools because they had no funds.
The district's financial crisis, which amounts to approximates $4 million, is somewhat disingenuous when considering that property-value increases contributed an additional $6 million in new revenues to the district.
Finally, the new Leave No Child Behind Act stipulates that if a school is failing, parents can elect to send their children to any school of their choice, and the district must provide transportation by setting aside 5 percent of its revenue from the state for this purpose. Reports have the district denying transfer requests, or refusing transportation to those whose requests were granted, in direct defiance of the new law. The district claims the schools are full and cannot accept any more students. If this is the case, then where is the justification for closing two schools, especially in a time of declining enrollments? Something is definitely amiss in Dodge. A new school board appears to be the only solution. So far, the Department of Education has been part of the problem as well. The Board of Education will meet on September 12-13, when a decision is expected.
