05
Mar
2002
Editor's note: This story went to press before the Davenport Community School District agreed to re-visit at its March 11 meeting the issue of closing Johnson and Grant schools. The hearing on the appeal was continued to April 5.
Parents contesting the decision to close Grant and Johnson elementary schools made their case to the state on Tuesday in a process that could send the Davenport Community School District back to the drawing board to address its budget shortfall, projected to be $3.2 million by June 30. The school district says closing the two schools will save $2.3 million a year.
A group of 10 parents led by Alan Guard filed an appeal with the Iowa Board of Education that challenges the January 28 vote by the school board to close the two schools.
On March 5, Guard and school-district representatives appeared before a hearing panel in Des Moines. An administrative law judge on that panel will make a recommendation to the Iowa Board of Education, which will then vote on whether the school district followed proper procedure in closing the schools. According to a spokesperson for the Iowa Department of Education, the administrative law judge is under no time limit to make a recommendation.
Strictly speaking, the appeal only deals with procedural issues - and not questions about the wisdom of closing the schools. "We do not decide if it was a good or bad decision," said Kathi Slaughter, a spokesperson for the Department of Education. "We determine whether the board went through the right process."
Although it is procedural, the parents' appeal gets to the heart of complaints about the current board of the Davenport Community School District: that the school board has largely ignored the public and tried to ram the closing of two schools down its throat without presenting alternatives.
In its appeal case filed with the Iowa Department of Education, parents argue that the school board violated both its own policy and state-written procedures for closing schools.
In 1977, the Iowa Department of Education developed what are commonly called the "Barker guidelines," which set forth seven rules for closing schools. (See sidebar.) The guidelines are general and basically require that the school board make its deliberations in the open, with significant research and public input. Slaughter said the Barker guidelines are considered by the Board of Education to have the force of law.
The crux of the appeal is whether the Davenport Community School District followed those rules. "We believe five of those guidelines have not been followed," Guard told the River Cities' Reader.
Jim Blanche, superintendent of the school district, told the River Cities' Reader that he would not discuss the district's appeal strategy. "We believe we substantially complied with the Barker guidelines," he said on Monday.
One key aspect of the case will be how the administrative law judge and, ultimately, the Iowa Board of Education view the district's 1982 document "Planning for the Future: Long-Range Facility Plan," which is part of the parents' case.
One section of the plan includes procedures for closing schools. It ends: "This is a procedure adopted by the Board of Education on March 10, 1980, with a specific timetable, factors for consideration, and an example for closing of an attendance facility. School closings can have much affect [sic] on residents of a community, and this report attempts to minimize this problem as much as possible, through an orderly approach."
The policy sets forth a process for "future closing of attendance facilities and disposal of unused buildings" that was developed in response to the Barker guidelines. The timetable in the guideline sets a deadline of October 15 for a "tentative determination to close an attendance facility"; requires a public hearing between 45 and 60 days of that resolution; and sets a deadline for a final vote within 30 days of the public hearing. The policy also specifically requires that all students be notified in writing of the intention to close the facility before the public hearing, and that "all written information or data to be presented to the Board by the school district administration for consideration at the public hearing ... be available to patrons of the District" before the public hearing.
The parents contend the district did not follow any of the guidelines set forth in the policy in deciding to close Johnson and Grant schools. Less than three weeks passed from the time parents found out the district was considering closing the schools and the final vote, and the school district refused to release its supporting documentation and data until the public hearing itself, at which the vote took place.
But although the closure guidelines included in the parents' case plainly state that they represent policy, the district is arguing in its response to the appeal that they do not. According to a footnote in the "Davenport Community School District Position Statement" - which was provided to the River Cities' Reader by Guard - "the resolution concerning a school closing procedure that Mr. Guard argues was passed in 1980 and attached to a 1982 report is not and does not purport to be a Board policy and it is not in the current Administrative Procedures book. It is not binding on the current board. Even if this 'procedure' had been a board policy, the Board could and would have rescinded it due to the exigent nature of the District's financial picture following the cuts announced last fall and following the Governor's announcement concerning allowable growth."
The school district does not dispute that it adopted the guidelines, nor does it claim that it ever rescinded them. It simply argues that they do not represent school-board policy.
Even if the administrative law judge determines that the 1980 rules are not district policy, though, Davenport Community Schools must still contend with the Barker guidelines.
While they are certainly more vague than the procedures outlined in the 1982 plan, the Barker guidelines could create problems for Davenport Community School District. Three issues could be especially important:
· Did the school district establish a "timeline in advance," as the Barker guidelines require? The school district acknowledges that it did not, but it argues that it should not be held to literal meaning of the requirement. "It is true that the Board did not announce at the beginning of its consideration of the school closings when it would be taking a vote," the district says in its position statement. "This is because the Board worked very hard at trying to avoid the closings ... . Using the Board's extraordinary efforts to avoid having to close the schools as an excuse to invalidate the Board's decision violates the spirit of the Barker decision."
· Did the process of deciding to close Grant and Johnson begin in November 2000 or in the past few months? The district claims that the process began in November 2000, and much of its appeal defense - particularly in terms of the Barker requirements of community input, an "open and frank public discussion," and notification - goes back to that month. But the school district in 2000 pulled from consideration the closure of Johnson and Grant. The key question is whether the board's action in January 2002 was a continuation of what happened in 2000 or a new process. The district says that parents were well aware that the issue of school closures could have been brought back if the district's financial condition did not improve. Guard and other parents say, however, that the process only started when they found out about the possible school closings in January 2002.
· Does the "District Master Planning" study - done by RDG Bussard Dikis and submitted to the school district in October 2000 - represent planning for the closing of Johnson and Grant schools? The study's recommendations, which the school board has followed so far, work from an assumption that schools needed to be closed. The recommendations include closing Grant and Johnson in 2002, and parents argue the study is a violation of the Barker requirements because it included no public input.
Even a successful appeal does not guarantee that Grant and Johnson will stay open. If the Iowa Board of Education decides in favor of the parents, it's likely Grant and Johnson would be forced to stay open at least another school year. But that wouldn't ensure they'll remain open beyond that.
If the Board of Education decides the school-board vote did not follow the proper procedures, "the local board can re-do the process correctly," Slaughter said. Blanche said he had no indication from the school board whether it would attempt to re-start the process if the parents' appeal is successful.
What Are the Barker Guidelines?
Below are the seven "Barker guidelines" established by the Iowa Department of Education in 1977. These rules ensure that school boards make their decisions with "thoughtful, knowledgeable, open deliberation and consideration," according to a letter the Department of Education sends to parents inquiring about appealing school closings.
Parents appealing the Davenport Community School District's decision to close Johnson and Grant elementary schools claim that the school board violated the first five guidelines and complied with only the final two.
(1) The board shall establish a timeline in advance for carrying out the procedures involved in making the decision on the matter, focusing all aspects of the timeline upon the anticipated date that the board will make its final decision on the matter.
(2) The board shall inform all aspects of the communities within its district that the matter is under consideration by the board.
(3) The board shall seek public input in all study and planning steps involved in making the decision.
(4) The board shall carry out sufficient research, study and planning, either directly or through groups and/or individuals selected by the board. The research, study and planning shall include consideration of, among other thing, student enrollment statistics, transportation costs, financial gains and losses, program offerings, plant facilities, and staff assignment.
(5) The board shall ensure that there is open and frank public discussion of the facts and issues involved.
(6) The board shall make a proper record of all steps taken in the making of the decision.
(7) The board shall make its final decision in an open meeting with a proper record made thereof.
Parents contesting the decision to close Grant and Johnson elementary schools made their case to the state on Tuesday in a process that could send the Davenport Community School District back to the drawing board to address its budget shortfall, projected to be $3.2 million by June 30. The school district says closing the two schools will save $2.3 million a year.
A group of 10 parents led by Alan Guard filed an appeal with the Iowa Board of Education that challenges the January 28 vote by the school board to close the two schools.
On March 5, Guard and school-district representatives appeared before a hearing panel in Des Moines. An administrative law judge on that panel will make a recommendation to the Iowa Board of Education, which will then vote on whether the school district followed proper procedure in closing the schools. According to a spokesperson for the Iowa Department of Education, the administrative law judge is under no time limit to make a recommendation.
Strictly speaking, the appeal only deals with procedural issues - and not questions about the wisdom of closing the schools. "We do not decide if it was a good or bad decision," said Kathi Slaughter, a spokesperson for the Department of Education. "We determine whether the board went through the right process."
Although it is procedural, the parents' appeal gets to the heart of complaints about the current board of the Davenport Community School District: that the school board has largely ignored the public and tried to ram the closing of two schools down its throat without presenting alternatives.
In its appeal case filed with the Iowa Department of Education, parents argue that the school board violated both its own policy and state-written procedures for closing schools.
In 1977, the Iowa Department of Education developed what are commonly called the "Barker guidelines," which set forth seven rules for closing schools. (See sidebar.) The guidelines are general and basically require that the school board make its deliberations in the open, with significant research and public input. Slaughter said the Barker guidelines are considered by the Board of Education to have the force of law.
The crux of the appeal is whether the Davenport Community School District followed those rules. "We believe five of those guidelines have not been followed," Guard told the River Cities' Reader.
Jim Blanche, superintendent of the school district, told the River Cities' Reader that he would not discuss the district's appeal strategy. "We believe we substantially complied with the Barker guidelines," he said on Monday.
One key aspect of the case will be how the administrative law judge and, ultimately, the Iowa Board of Education view the district's 1982 document "Planning for the Future: Long-Range Facility Plan," which is part of the parents' case.
One section of the plan includes procedures for closing schools. It ends: "This is a procedure adopted by the Board of Education on March 10, 1980, with a specific timetable, factors for consideration, and an example for closing of an attendance facility. School closings can have much affect [sic] on residents of a community, and this report attempts to minimize this problem as much as possible, through an orderly approach."
The policy sets forth a process for "future closing of attendance facilities and disposal of unused buildings" that was developed in response to the Barker guidelines. The timetable in the guideline sets a deadline of October 15 for a "tentative determination to close an attendance facility"; requires a public hearing between 45 and 60 days of that resolution; and sets a deadline for a final vote within 30 days of the public hearing. The policy also specifically requires that all students be notified in writing of the intention to close the facility before the public hearing, and that "all written information or data to be presented to the Board by the school district administration for consideration at the public hearing ... be available to patrons of the District" before the public hearing.
The parents contend the district did not follow any of the guidelines set forth in the policy in deciding to close Johnson and Grant schools. Less than three weeks passed from the time parents found out the district was considering closing the schools and the final vote, and the school district refused to release its supporting documentation and data until the public hearing itself, at which the vote took place.
But although the closure guidelines included in the parents' case plainly state that they represent policy, the district is arguing in its response to the appeal that they do not. According to a footnote in the "Davenport Community School District Position Statement" - which was provided to the River Cities' Reader by Guard - "the resolution concerning a school closing procedure that Mr. Guard argues was passed in 1980 and attached to a 1982 report is not and does not purport to be a Board policy and it is not in the current Administrative Procedures book. It is not binding on the current board. Even if this 'procedure' had been a board policy, the Board could and would have rescinded it due to the exigent nature of the District's financial picture following the cuts announced last fall and following the Governor's announcement concerning allowable growth."
The school district does not dispute that it adopted the guidelines, nor does it claim that it ever rescinded them. It simply argues that they do not represent school-board policy.
Even if the administrative law judge determines that the 1980 rules are not district policy, though, Davenport Community Schools must still contend with the Barker guidelines.
While they are certainly more vague than the procedures outlined in the 1982 plan, the Barker guidelines could create problems for Davenport Community School District. Three issues could be especially important:
· Did the school district establish a "timeline in advance," as the Barker guidelines require? The school district acknowledges that it did not, but it argues that it should not be held to literal meaning of the requirement. "It is true that the Board did not announce at the beginning of its consideration of the school closings when it would be taking a vote," the district says in its position statement. "This is because the Board worked very hard at trying to avoid the closings ... . Using the Board's extraordinary efforts to avoid having to close the schools as an excuse to invalidate the Board's decision violates the spirit of the Barker decision."
· Did the process of deciding to close Grant and Johnson begin in November 2000 or in the past few months? The district claims that the process began in November 2000, and much of its appeal defense - particularly in terms of the Barker requirements of community input, an "open and frank public discussion," and notification - goes back to that month. But the school district in 2000 pulled from consideration the closure of Johnson and Grant. The key question is whether the board's action in January 2002 was a continuation of what happened in 2000 or a new process. The district says that parents were well aware that the issue of school closures could have been brought back if the district's financial condition did not improve. Guard and other parents say, however, that the process only started when they found out about the possible school closings in January 2002.
· Does the "District Master Planning" study - done by RDG Bussard Dikis and submitted to the school district in October 2000 - represent planning for the closing of Johnson and Grant schools? The study's recommendations, which the school board has followed so far, work from an assumption that schools needed to be closed. The recommendations include closing Grant and Johnson in 2002, and parents argue the study is a violation of the Barker requirements because it included no public input.
Even a successful appeal does not guarantee that Grant and Johnson will stay open. If the Iowa Board of Education decides in favor of the parents, it's likely Grant and Johnson would be forced to stay open at least another school year. But that wouldn't ensure they'll remain open beyond that.
If the Board of Education decides the school-board vote did not follow the proper procedures, "the local board can re-do the process correctly," Slaughter said. Blanche said he had no indication from the school board whether it would attempt to re-start the process if the parents' appeal is successful.
What Are the Barker Guidelines?
Below are the seven "Barker guidelines" established by the Iowa Department of Education in 1977. These rules ensure that school boards make their decisions with "thoughtful, knowledgeable, open deliberation and consideration," according to a letter the Department of Education sends to parents inquiring about appealing school closings.
Parents appealing the Davenport Community School District's decision to close Johnson and Grant elementary schools claim that the school board violated the first five guidelines and complied with only the final two.
(1) The board shall establish a timeline in advance for carrying out the procedures involved in making the decision on the matter, focusing all aspects of the timeline upon the anticipated date that the board will make its final decision on the matter.
(2) The board shall inform all aspects of the communities within its district that the matter is under consideration by the board.
(3) The board shall seek public input in all study and planning steps involved in making the decision.
(4) The board shall carry out sufficient research, study and planning, either directly or through groups and/or individuals selected by the board. The research, study and planning shall include consideration of, among other thing, student enrollment statistics, transportation costs, financial gains and losses, program offerings, plant facilities, and staff assignment.
(5) The board shall ensure that there is open and frank public discussion of the facts and issues involved.
(6) The board shall make a proper record of all steps taken in the making of the decision.
(7) The board shall make its final decision in an open meeting with a proper record made thereof.
