12
Mar
2002
The saga of the Davenport Community School District's decision to close Johnson and Grant elementary schools took several twists on Monday and Tuesday.
At a hearing last week before an Iowa State Department of Education hearing panel, both the school district and parents who appealed the January closing decision agreed to a continuance so that the board could re-consider its vote.
But when the school-board agenda was released last week, it contained some surprises. The board was re-considering its vote, but it also planned to rescind two policies related to school closings: a 1980 rule that outlined steps and timeframes for school closings and the district's policy for boundary changes. In terms of re-considering its vote, those guidelines would have made it impossible for the school district to close Johnson and Grant for the 2002-3 school year.
The school board now plans to vote on April 22 whether to close Grant and Johnson at the end of the current academic year. Parents fear the school district is systematically removing legal obstacles to closing the schools, without an honest consideration of alternatives. Parents accused the board of discarding the rules that interfere with its agenda.
In preparation of the April 22 vote, the district will appoint a task force that includes representatives of the administration, school board, parent groups, and the public that will meet weekly starting by March 18. The group is charged with exploring the issue of Johnson and Grant closure, as well as alternatives, and will deliver its final report to the school district by April 15. Davenport Community School District Superintendent Jim Blanche told the River Cities' Reader that the task force will be a relatively small "working group" whose meetings will be open to the public.
The district will also notify parents by letter of the possibility of school closings; hold community meetings at Johnson and Grant before March 25; and hold a public hearing on April 15.
Monday's school-board votes are clearly intended to the put the district in compliance with the "Barker guidelines" (established by the Iowa State Board of Education in 1977) in the event that the board decides to close Grant and Johnson. (For more information on the Barker guidelines, see "School-Closing Appeal Goes to Hearing Panel," River Cities' Reader Issue 355, March 6-12, 2002.)
The process outlined by the board on Monday would put it in strict compliance with the requirements of the Barker rules, by setting a date for a final vote, for example. But it's unknown yet whether they'll satisfy the Department of Education on issues of interpretation, particularly questions of "sufficient research, study, and planning" and "open and frank public discussion" that the Barker guidelines require, especially with six weeks between Monday's meeting and a final vote.
Parents thought last week's agreement to re-consider the school closings represented at least a one-year stay of execution for Grant and Johnson and were outraged by the board's actions. "I know exactly what we agreed to," said parent Alan Guard, who filed the school-closing appeal and attended last week's hearing in Des Moines, "and this agenda item is not what we agreed to." Parents expected the board to re-visit the issue of school closings, but it also expected the board would abide by its own policy (adopted in response to the Barker guidelines, but specifying the level of public involvement). Instead, the board rescinded its rules.
When asked to give a reason for rescinding the school-closing policy, Blanche explained that the time limits imposed by the district's rules were too restrictive. Parents responded that the new six-week time frame established by the board does not give enough time for proper consideration and exploration of alternatives.
"We need to have months associated with this process," said Brenda Jordahl-Buckles, president of the PTA for Johnson. "That [six-week] time frame is next to impossible." Thirteen members of the public spoke against the board's actions during the public-forum section of Monday's meeting.
Guard on Tuesday mailed off a motion for summary judgment asking the Department of Education, essentially, to wipe out last week's agreement between parents and the school district for a continuance and proceed with the parents' appeal. The motion asks "the hearing panel to overrule the January 28, 2002, board action [to close Johnson and Grant] and issue a cease-and-desist order to the Davenport Community School District on any further action to close Johnson and Grant Schools for the FY2002-2003 school year."
The motion asserts that the school district "did not negotiate in good faith" at the appeal hearing on March 5. "The additional actions ... were intentionally withheld during the settlement discussion in order to delay and put into place a sham process to try and satisfy Barker," the motion reads.
The motion also questions the legitimacy of the process the district has established, because school-district budgets must be certified by the county auditor's office no later than April 15. If the issue of Grant and Johnson is an open question prior to the April 22 vote, there's no way the school district can know what its budget will include by the April 15 deadline.
Also on Tuesday, Guard and other parents held a press conference at which they outlined seven steps that would save the school district an estimated $3 million without closing Johnson and Grant. The school district projects a $3.2 million deficit by June 30 and has said closing Johnson and Grant would save $2.3 million a year. "These are all real, doable savings which have no discernable effect on services and exceed the district's savings from closing Johnson and Grant schools," the parents' summary reads.
The largest savings item ($1.2 million) would be the elimination through attrition (rather than layoffs) of 21 teaching positions by increasing class size by two students, which was one of the district's assumptions for closing Grant and Johnson schools. Parents also propose eliminating one associate or assistant principal at each high school ($270,000) and six additional administrative positions ($515,000).
When Guard announced the press conference at the school-board meeting, Board President Jim Hester questioned why parents were making their suggestions outside of the process the board created.
"I want to be sure we have a forum we control," Guard said.
But when the school-board agenda was released last week, it contained some surprises. The board was re-considering its vote, but it also planned to rescind two policies related to school closings: a 1980 rule that outlined steps and timeframes for school closings and the district's policy for boundary changes. In terms of re-considering its vote, those guidelines would have made it impossible for the school district to close Johnson and Grant for the 2002-3 school year.
The school board now plans to vote on April 22 whether to close Grant and Johnson at the end of the current academic year. Parents fear the school district is systematically removing legal obstacles to closing the schools, without an honest consideration of alternatives. Parents accused the board of discarding the rules that interfere with its agenda.
In preparation of the April 22 vote, the district will appoint a task force that includes representatives of the administration, school board, parent groups, and the public that will meet weekly starting by March 18. The group is charged with exploring the issue of Johnson and Grant closure, as well as alternatives, and will deliver its final report to the school district by April 15. Davenport Community School District Superintendent Jim Blanche told the River Cities' Reader that the task force will be a relatively small "working group" whose meetings will be open to the public.
The district will also notify parents by letter of the possibility of school closings; hold community meetings at Johnson and Grant before March 25; and hold a public hearing on April 15.
Monday's school-board votes are clearly intended to the put the district in compliance with the "Barker guidelines" (established by the Iowa State Board of Education in 1977) in the event that the board decides to close Grant and Johnson. (For more information on the Barker guidelines, see "School-Closing Appeal Goes to Hearing Panel," River Cities' Reader Issue 355, March 6-12, 2002.)
The process outlined by the board on Monday would put it in strict compliance with the requirements of the Barker rules, by setting a date for a final vote, for example. But it's unknown yet whether they'll satisfy the Department of Education on issues of interpretation, particularly questions of "sufficient research, study, and planning" and "open and frank public discussion" that the Barker guidelines require, especially with six weeks between Monday's meeting and a final vote.
Parents thought last week's agreement to re-consider the school closings represented at least a one-year stay of execution for Grant and Johnson and were outraged by the board's actions. "I know exactly what we agreed to," said parent Alan Guard, who filed the school-closing appeal and attended last week's hearing in Des Moines, "and this agenda item is not what we agreed to." Parents expected the board to re-visit the issue of school closings, but it also expected the board would abide by its own policy (adopted in response to the Barker guidelines, but specifying the level of public involvement). Instead, the board rescinded its rules.
When asked to give a reason for rescinding the school-closing policy, Blanche explained that the time limits imposed by the district's rules were too restrictive. Parents responded that the new six-week time frame established by the board does not give enough time for proper consideration and exploration of alternatives.
"We need to have months associated with this process," said Brenda Jordahl-Buckles, president of the PTA for Johnson. "That [six-week] time frame is next to impossible." Thirteen members of the public spoke against the board's actions during the public-forum section of Monday's meeting.
Guard on Tuesday mailed off a motion for summary judgment asking the Department of Education, essentially, to wipe out last week's agreement between parents and the school district for a continuance and proceed with the parents' appeal. The motion asks "the hearing panel to overrule the January 28, 2002, board action [to close Johnson and Grant] and issue a cease-and-desist order to the Davenport Community School District on any further action to close Johnson and Grant Schools for the FY2002-2003 school year."
The motion asserts that the school district "did not negotiate in good faith" at the appeal hearing on March 5. "The additional actions ... were intentionally withheld during the settlement discussion in order to delay and put into place a sham process to try and satisfy Barker," the motion reads.
The motion also questions the legitimacy of the process the district has established, because school-district budgets must be certified by the county auditor's office no later than April 15. If the issue of Grant and Johnson is an open question prior to the April 22 vote, there's no way the school district can know what its budget will include by the April 15 deadline.
Also on Tuesday, Guard and other parents held a press conference at which they outlined seven steps that would save the school district an estimated $3 million without closing Johnson and Grant. The school district projects a $3.2 million deficit by June 30 and has said closing Johnson and Grant would save $2.3 million a year. "These are all real, doable savings which have no discernable effect on services and exceed the district's savings from closing Johnson and Grant schools," the parents' summary reads.
The largest savings item ($1.2 million) would be the elimination through attrition (rather than layoffs) of 21 teaching positions by increasing class size by two students, which was one of the district's assumptions for closing Grant and Johnson schools. Parents also propose eliminating one associate or assistant principal at each high school ($270,000) and six additional administrative positions ($515,000).
When Guard announced the press conference at the school-board meeting, Board President Jim Hester questioned why parents were making their suggestions outside of the process the board created.
"I want to be sure we have a forum we control," Guard said.
