Executive Summary

Research-based Decision Making

Board-Administration Roles

Assessment and Management Information Reporting Systems

Ombudsperson

Decision Making Process

At the Board meetings I attended during the campaign, and since, there has been much I have found impressive: the obvious dedication of administrators, Strategy II and Board members; the effort to educate the public about the budget process (with public presentations, and the new "six facts" brochure); and many other things that could be mentioned.

What I have found most striking by its absence, however, is the lack of evidence of efforts to uncover, and apply, such research as might be relevant and helpful in addressing issues before the District.

It is precisely because I do not "know it all" about K-12 education issues – in fact, I come to the Board with relatively little professional training in this field – that I have spent a good deal of time since the election searching for, and reading, material both in hard copy and on the Web. No one who does this can fail to come away impressed with how much is out there.

There is so much, in fact, that although I am continuing to add "links" from my "School Board" Web page [http://soli.inav.net/~njohnson/schoolboard] to many of these resources, I make the point there that none are more than "examples" of the range of what's available.

There are books about (a) how and why boards (of all kinds) should rethink their role and become more effective (such as, Carver, Boards That Make a Difference), (b) how and why we should be setting (and then measuring and reaching) academic standards (such as Tucker and Codding, Standards for Our Schools (1998)), and (c) how school boards can make limited budgets go farther – while improving academic results (such as Odden and Busch, Financing Schools for High Performance (1998)) – among a great many other relevant subjects. (I have recently purchased, and am in the process of reading, the last two.)

So it's obvious I think there is useful "hard copy" material out there, too. Much of it is available in libraries in Iowa City, and that which is not can be ordered on inter-library loan.

My emphasis on the Internet as a resource is not because it's high tech, faddish, "cool," or a nice hobby. It's because it (a) gives us access to more information, (b) without cost to ourselves or the District, and (c) relatively instantaneously, rather than waiting for inter-library loans.

There are academic, scientific, classroom research findings regarding "what works" and why. There are reports of raw data, from a district, or nationally (e.g., numbers of students, expenditures per student). There are comparative reports, comparing teachers' pay, or test score results, between countries or North American districts. There are reports and descriptions of "best practices" and other boards' policy statements. There are thoughtful evaluations of others' data, proposals, programs and philosophies of education. And these exist for other countries around the world from which we have much to learn as well.

Information is sometimes found in unexpected places on the Web. One would, of course, look to the U.S. Department of Education, the Harvard Graduate School of Education, or the National Education Association – among a great many other obvious sites. But there are also magazines online, foundation and think tank reports, numerous educational reform organizations, and a National Public Radio program page with useful links – among a great many other not so obvious sites. Fortunately, there are also numerous "search engines" to ease the exploration, including one provided by "ERIC" for searching the nearly one million documents it provides.

I sense there is a genuine desire on the part of each Board member to help make our District not only one of the top in the nation, but one known to be one of the country's best. Not only is this in the best interest of the students who are always our primary responsibility, it is also helpful in promoting the state of Iowa in general, and Iowa City and the University of Iowa in particular.

Whether we consider other school boards and educators to be our "competitors" or our "colleagues," I believe we simply must be informed about what they are up to. What are their policies? How have they allocated responsibilities between board members, superintendent, and school sites? How do our teacher salaries – and administrative expenses – compare (something Strategy II has asked about)? Test scores? What are their "best practices" that we might emulate – or improve upon? What have they learned from experience that we could benefit from – while avoiding the pain and expense of making the same mistakes ourselves? What do the standards, accountability and reporting systems they have in place tell us about what they perceive to be their "mission"?

Most of the issues now before us would benefit from this approach:  commercialism in the schools, athletic participation by non-District students, class size, school boundaries, transportation, safety in general and with volunteers in particular, the negotiation process with teachers and other staff, approaches to the budgeting process and decisions – essentially every decision we confront.

Proposed Action.  If there were any agreement among us about this, I would like to discuss what we could do about it. Options that initially occur might include: (a) ask the Superintendent to accompany all (major) reports and proposals with a sample of comparative documents from elsewhere, and citations to additional sources on the Web. (b) Recognize the need for an additional staff person to perform this function for the Board. (c) See if we can find pro bono University professors, graduate students, parents, or others to help – at no additional burden to the District's personnel or budget. (d) Share these responsibilities ourselves, accepting the assignments, in turn, to provide each other with background information.

One of the functions Matt Goodlaxson and I can provide for the Board and Administration is to share with you the comments, and perceptions of citizens, we heard during the campaign. This is not to say those perceptions are correct. It is to say that they are genuinely felt, and talked about within the community.

Many citizens commented that ours is a "rubber-stamp" board. The perception is that the Superintendent sets the agenda and runs the meeting, recommends actions to the Board, and that, as often as not, the Board simply approves whatever the Superintendent wants – many times with little or no discussion.

This perception is further reinforced with the seating arrangement.  Unlike the City Council, FCC and other federal agencies, or state and federal courts, the Superintendent and Associate Superintendent sit at a bench of what is seen as a nine-person school board. (Again, I am not, here, arguing that is good or bad, or whether some other district can or can't be found where it is done. I'm simply noting it contributes to the perception.)

"Rubber stamping" is one of the common criticisms of boards in general in the literature. It is an unproductive role that boards can, and often do, assume.

At the opposite extreme is what critics call the "micro-managing" board. We are also perceived, to some degree, to be falling into that trap as well. (Of course, both are possible: focusing on micro issues, but disposing of them by rubber-stamping whatever the administrator wants.) The items on the agenda, the spoken presentations of written reports, very often deal with matters that could (some would argue should) be – indeed, in some cases have already been – delegated to the Superintendent and Administration.

The reason offered for our doing this is that the Board meetings serve multiple functions, one of which is informing the community – those present and those watching on cable – about what is going on in the District.

So, if boards are not supposed to rubber stamp or micro-manage, what should they be doing? The critics say that we should be engaged in the formulation of (a) vision and mission, (b) long-range planning, and (c) policy formulation.

Of course, we do some of this. But even when we do, the vision, plan or policy tends to be one either identical, or only slightly different, from what someone else has proposed: the Superintendent, or a citizens group. Obviously, not only is such input not inappropriate, it is even commendable as a matter of staff and community relations and our pursuit of the best possible policies. As I have argued above, we would make wiser decisions if we included input from outside our community as well. But whatever the input, the ultimate policy needs to be ours. It should, initially as well as ultimately, come from within the Board.

(A related consequence of this approach, discussed below, involves the decision-making process. I believe we owe it to those who are assisting us with decisions (such as the committee now addressing background briefings for volunteers) – as well as the broader community of interested persons – to begin any policy making process with our statement of a proposed decision. What is our best thinking at the outset? What do we see as issues and options? Where do we think, now, we might come out? We should give folks some guidance, something to shoot at.)

Proposed Action.  Obviously, these observations require a lot of thought by the Board. But to start our discussion I would suggest we think about such things as the following. (a) Review the law, and our policies, and delegate to the Superintendent absolutely every action we can. Clear the decks of the clutter. (Of course, this does not mean that the Board would not provide the Superintendent policy direction regarding this delegated authority.) (b) Leave the "community informing" function to the Superintendent as well (for the most part). Instead of regular Board meetings at which spoken presentations are made of written reports, have the Superintendent conduct weekly, or bi-weekly briefings of the news media and public at which such reports can be presented. This would be, and would be perceived to be, the Superintendent's meeting/briefing, not the Board's. Board members would not be forbidden to attend; but if in attendance would be in the audience, not on the bench with the Superintendent. (c) The Board would continue to hold meetings, of course, that would be public, "open meetings" under the law. But their focus, to the absolute maximum extent possible, would be on vision, long-range planning, and policies – not administrative details or the "crisis of the week." (d) To aid the Board, and its focus, we would search out input from outside the District and community, as described in the section above. For example, we might want to schedule single-subject evenings, perhaps inviting "panel discussion" participants who happen to be passing through town, or are drawn from the community's reservoir of expertise. Such meetings could be preceded with suggested readings, off the Web or in hard copy, and a page or two of originally-prepared executive summary briefing material made available to the community in advance – perhaps published in the local paper. Not "just talk," we could announce a proposed, related policy in advance, then modify it and proceed with it following the evening. Possible topics might be class size, foreign language instruction, teacher shortage, safety generally, student alcohol abuse – something other than, or at least that goes well beyond, current hot-button controversies in the District.

Of course, random information is also helpful: OBWA ("oversight by walking around"), e-mail and phone calls from parents and teachers, and good journalism.

But the Board needs a more systematic way of tracking everything going on in the District; something both less, and more, than listening to spoken presentations of the occasional written staff reports.

What it needs is what is usually called a "management information reporting system" – in our case an "oversight information reporting system." This is different from "all the data all the time." That's where the "system" comes in.

In a for-profit business with, say, a large number of retail outlets, the CEO would not need to know the daily sales figures, or inventory levels, for every item in every store. What s/he might want to know would be information about unfilled jobs, profit per square foot, inventory levels, and sales that fell either above, or below, expected levels over a period of time – what is called "exception reporting." In short, s/he has potential access to all conceivable data but would actually be presented with only that which warrants attention for some reason. It's what I've called "bigger fish net, fewer fish."

I believe our Board needs a comparable system. We do need to be informed, on an ongoing basis, about the full range of what's going on in the District. We do not need to approve, take action of some kind, have a spoken – or even written – report about every event or decision.

Of course, an essential prerequisite to such an information system is for the Board to focus, and settle upon, its vision, mission, and goals. How would we ever know if our School District had been "successful"?

The for-profit retail business I just mentioned presumably has "bottom line" profit somewhere in its mission statement. (Although, compare the local Cedar River Paper Company's focus on a great many additional, progressive, corporate goals.) Our measures are not so easy to come by.

I'm frank to say that, given my relative lack of expertise on the subject, what those measures should be are not now clear to me. I'm happy to engage in conversation about potential measures for us, but would prefer to see the results of some Web or library research on the subject first. Presumably test scores, both absolute and relative/improvement (comparing first of the year and end of the year scores for individual students) would be a part of it. We might want to compare, say, our elementary schools' scores within the District, and with districts elsewhere (e.g., Iowa, U.S., world).

Of course, conventional test scores, such as the ITED and ITBS, are not the sole measures. We are about to learn something about "portfolio" evaluations from ACT (a basic ingredient of Ted Sizer's Coalition of Essential Schools). We might want to do "attitude surveys" of students – who are, after all, our ultimate "customers" (e.g., to what extent do students feel comfortable in school, enthusiastic, safe, empowered to affect their school; do they think it is a good climate for learning). Physical fitness can be measured, compared, and tracked over time. Perhaps someone has suggestions regarding the measure of "cultural fitness" (i.e., students' ability to appreciate art and music).

We might want to track our high school graduates post-graduation (e.g., numbers attending, and completing, two and four-year colleges). We might want to know how our schools compare with each other, and other districts, regarding the age/salary spread of teachers. As acknowledged, I don't now know what this Board, as a body, believes to be the most useful measures of District progress toward its mission – or what better, alternative measures might be.

Proposed Action.  I would propose that the Board begin the task of developing measurable standards for (a) tracking the District's progress toward its mission/goals, and (b) bringing to its attention such other data as it believes useful to its oversight function. Parallel to this effort we would explore what other districts have done in this regard, and what proposals may exist in the literature. Because this function is at the core of the Board's most fundamental responsibilities, I believe that it is something Board members should do personally rather than delegate to the Administration or a citizens' advisory committee. Of course, the research function could be supplemented with staff (District or pro bono) assistance, and such input as is available from the wealth of expertise available in the community.

Virtually every institution in our country has found it necessary to create the "ombudsperson" position. The University of Iowa has one. The law school has another one of its own. Hospitals find an ombudsperson a helpful deterrent to medical abuses – and the malpractice suits that result. Newspapers have found them an alternative to expensive and time-consuming defamation suits.

Although my research on this one is far from complete, my present impression is that the use within K-12 schools has usually been more specialized, e.g., limited to, say, dealing with issues surrounding special needs students.

As the name reveals, the concept came to the U.S. from Scandinavia – if I remember correctly, about 40 years ago. It's spread rapidly since.

Features vary, but most share some common qualities. The ombudsperson is, by definition, outside of the usual "chain of command." In our case the ombudsperson would be hired and fired by, and report directly to, the Board. Ombudspersons respect and protect the privacy, confidentiality – and often stark fear (of retribution) – of those who come to them. They try to work out conflicts informally, "behind the scenes." They are there to manage disputes not mete out discipline.

Ombudspersons are not a lightning rod for all complaints; they are not an alternative to "going through channels" – when channels can offer relief. They are an alternative when channels are the problem; say, a case of sexual harassment of an employee by a supervisor. They are an additional option after channels have been exhausted.

"Doesn't the District already have seven ombudspersons?" you ask.  "Isn't that what Board members are supposed to do?"

I don't think so. Sure, we can listen to our constituents with sensitivity – and we should (teachers, parents, students, those who do business with the District). But I don't think it's appropriate (in most cases) for Board members to take on the role of caseworkers, fact finders or investigators. And I certainly don't think it's appropriate for us to recommend, or take, action on the basis of a one-sided presentation of facts.

Nor do I think it is appropriate to ignore complaints.

During the campaign we encountered a disturbing number of anecdotes from individuals who could have benefited from a District ombudsperson. Teachers represented that they were terrorized at the prospect of unfair retribution were they to speak their minds. Parents told horror stories of the indignities they had suffered in talking with Central Administration persons.

I am not saying that these anecdotes were solidly grounded in fact. How could I know? And that's precisely the point.

An ombudsperson would provide us, as Board members, a genuinely useful way of responding to those who contact us with concerns that cannot, appropriately, simply be referred to the Administration.

How would our ombudsperson handle complaints? (a) Sometimes just listening would be enough. Perceived as independent, and the complainant's advocate, the ombudsperson may be able to bring the complainant around to understanding, and supporting, the situation. (b) Sometimes, having listened, the ombudsperson would simply reject the complaint as ungrounded, regardless of the complainant's acceptance of that result. (c) Sometimes the ombudsperson would send the complainant to someone within "channels" who likely will be able to provide the relief sought. (d) Sometimes the ombudsperson will conduct a confidential, informal investigation of the situation, maintaining the confidentiality of the complainant when that is requested and appropriate. The investigation may, in turn, lead to (e) a finding that the complainant had the facts wrong, (f) an effort to rectify the problem with a cooperative District employee, or (g) an effort to mediate between the parties involved.

As appropriate, the ombudsperson would provide the Board with summary information, protecting the confidences of complainants, regarding multiple complaints, trends, or other reactions that rise to the level of Board significance.

Proposed Action.  As usual, I would recommend that we begin with research regarding ombudspersons in general and their use within school districts in particular. (I have a researcher looking into this now, but she has only just begun her work.) Following that, if we're still interested, I would recommend we invite in the local individuals who have worked as ombudspersons in this community to share some of their insights with us. If still interested, I would recommend we establish a short-term "pilot project" ombudsperson, perhaps even on a pro bono basis with someone who has had experience with the role in Iowa City. If there is little enough actual use of the person we might even be able to establish the position on a permanent basis with a pro bono volunteer. If not, perhaps one of us, in turn, could be trained and perform the function for the Board. (My guess is that this would not be a "fulltime job" for anyone in this District, but that's only a guess.) Only if the demand is sufficient to indicate a fulltime position is warranted, or if no pro bono volunteer is available, do we need concern ourselves with additional budget for the position/function.

"I believe we owe it to those who are assisting us with decisions (such as the committee now addressing background briefings for volunteers) – as well as the broader community of interested persons – to begin any policy making process with our statement of a proposed decision. What is our best thinking at the outset? What do we see as issues and options? Where do we think, now, we might come out? We should give folks some guidance, something to shoot at."

It involves the following elements.

1.  Board members' personal participation.  Rather than responding to proposals from the Superintendent, or delegating responsibility to committees, I would like to see us individually do more initial research and thinking on our own. I'd like to see a Board that is more proactive and less reactive.

2.  Proposed decisions.  Following our initial discussions I'd like to see us issue a "proposed decision." It would state not only the ultimate policy, but also the options we've considered (and rejected), the research and data we've relied upon, and the process of analysis we've used to arrive at our position.

3.  Comment period.  When a decision is of sufficient importance to warrant this process we should allow time (probably something between 30 and 60 days) for affected or interested parties to submit their reactions, criticisms and alternative proposals.

4.  Reasoned, responsive, final decision.  One of the complaints heard during the campaign was that although the Board would listen to those citizens who appeared before it, it would not interact with them, it would not respond, and the final decisions arrived at appeared to have been taken without any consideration whatsoever of what had been presented. As always, I am not asserting these allegations are true, only that they were expressed.

What I am proposing by way of antidote is the issuance of reasoned, responsive final decisions following the process just described. Our supporting opinion would restate petitioners' positions  – hopefully with sufficient force and effect that they will read our restatement and respond, "Yes, they really understood; they really got it." This would, of course, include the data and arguments that most effectively challenge what we end up doing. We would then briefly describe the options open to us, their advantages and disadvantages, and why we chose the one we did.

Such a process does not guarantee universal community support for everything we do. Nothing can do that. Nor need it. But it would successfully remove an avoidable element of community dissatisfaction brought on by the present process. And that, I believe, would make life happier for the Board members and Superintendent – and, not incidentally, create a more successful educational system for our students.