A vigorous negative response to his statement followed from the Iowa City Education Association and numerous teachers who interpreted his remarks to be a personal criticism of all of them. Most of the responses took the form of e-mail. Some individuals, including one Board member, thought the matter so serious as to require him to step down as President or resign from the Board.

A special agenda item dealing with this controversy was put on the agenda for the April 24 meeting. (The agenda also contained an item designed to begin the process of Board review of special education programs.)

Given the significance of special education generally, the local political and media importance of this controversy relative to the other matters before the Board this year, its relationship to Board-staff communication practices, and Board collegiality, ethics and governance, it seemed worthwhile to post the following documents for public evaluation.

The first is a transcript of Nicholas Johnson's extemporaneous remarks following those of other Board members at the April 24 meeting. The second is his response to an e-mail of protest from 36 special education teachers. The third is the text of that incoming e-mail.

Obviously, there are many more e-mails, and transcripts of statements, that could be referenced. But it would be inappropriate to include them without getting prior permission, and difficult to know what to include and exclude. So this is intended as no more than a sampling of the controversy.

I'd like to make some general comments about the special ed program and some of the things that have been said this evening.

First of all, the idealism behind the original legislation and the revisions really does represent humanity at its finest and is very much in the tradition of Iowa City, making opportunities for everyone in our school district. And that is national policy.

Number two, I think virtually everybody, if not everybody, involved in the program in any way, has the very best of intentions.

Number three, I think that our special education teachers and associates are among the most highly trained and dedicated professionals in our school district.  I could go on at some length about that.

Number four, I think for many students and parents and teachers, the programs are doing exactly what they are designed to do. Among the e-mails we’ve received from parents who detailed some of the problems that they have had are also -- even from those parents -- and others, who praise the quality of our staff -- as Matt has done this evening and also included in his statement on April 10th.

The fact is that there are serious problems in the program, and that in no way reflects adversely upon any special education teacher.

One of the major problems is this is an unfunded mandate.  The federal government tells us what we have to do, but only provides 12 percent of the funding to do it.  Now that is a pretty big problem for starters.

I think the people on whom the greatest burdens fall are the special ed teachers, the associates, and the classroom teachers who are trying to make this work. They often do not have the resources or do not have the professional training that the act mandates.

But I think the frustration is not limited to them.

The law provides legal rights for parents. What parent would not want what the law requires for their child?

But the law does not provide the funding. So you have a parent making a demand they are legally entitled to make, and an administrator who doesn’t have the money to satisfy it, trying to figure out what they are going to do.

You have frustrated teachers who suffer physical abuse often from this program, you have frustrated parents, frustrated administrators, and you have some children who -- the special ed teachers would be the first to tell you -- are not getting everything that they would like to be able to provide them if they had the resources.

I think we need to see what we can do as a district about this.

In my reading, what Matt [Goodlaxson] had to say -- in, admittedly, his own inimitable way -- was just that.  He said this is a matter for the Board.

I disagree with Don’s [Board member Don Jackson's] characterization that Matt was bringing “an individual concern to the Board.”  I don’t think it is any more "individual" than that of any other parent who has served on the Board brings when they bring a District-wide issue to the Board.  I believe Matt is correct when he says that he has not brought his personal case to this Board.  And I will say, unlike some who have served in his position.

The suggestion that this represents a "conflict," Jan [Board member Jan Leff], it seems to me is no more conflict than Don [Jackson], Dale [Board member Dale Shultz] and Lauren [Board member Lauren Reece] confront as a result of having children in the District.  It's no more conflict than Al [former Board member Al Leff, Jan Leff's husband and 12-year Board member] had having you as a teacher in the District.

I think we have a benefit that comes to the Board from having parents who have had personal experience so long as they do not use their Board position to advocate for their own personal cause, which I don’t believe Matt has done.

Indeed, I find it rather extraordinary that the President of  the School Board would feel the frustration that he obviously feels. That is simply symptomatic of problems that do not relate to the ability of the individual special ed teachers.

We have what Don [Jackson] would call "systemic problems" in the [special ed] program and we need to address them in the most constructive way possible.

I apologize for the long statement.  I think we have a lot of work to do.  I think Matt has done us a favor by bringing this to our attention even if he might have chosen other ways to phrase it.

But I think ultimately it works very much towards the interests of the special ed teachers and parents and students and everyone who cares about this program if the Board will finally focus on what some of options and opportunities are to make it better for everybody -- starting with the teachers themselves.

Thank you.

[April 24, 2001 E-Mail]

Margaret Bottorff

Margaret:

Thank you for the additional input on the special ed issues which you have provided on behalf of some 35 special ed teachers.

Everyone on the Board -- and, actually, no one more than Matt -- recognizes, values and appreciates the high quality professionals we have working with our special ed program. I join my colleagues in thanking you for what you do.

Although overlooked, he made that point expressly in his statement April 10,¹ and I suspect (though I cannot know) that he will repeat it this evening.

Indeed, one of the Board's, and Matt's, concerns is that you and your colleagues are not always getting the resources and support you need. He has personal experience with his own kids, and other parents of special ed children, that informs his advocacy for you. But he has not in 2-1/2 years (and I suspect never will) ask the Board for special treatment for them by virtue of his position. (Previous persons in his position have not always been so circumspect.)

Many of those involved with special ed are under occasional stress -- special ed professionals, classroom teachers, administrators, parents, and the children. It is in no way a criticism of the special ed teachers merely to report that this is a program that has lots of problems -- nationally, not just locally -- as well as a great many success stories with happy endings.

I, and I believe the other Board members as well, just want to make sure that we are doing the best we can with the very limited financial resources we have available. As you know, special ed is an "unfunded mandate" -- federal requirements are imposed upon us, and legal rights created in parents and children, for which the federal government provides only 12 percent of the funding. You know that much better than I.

It is unfortunate and divisive, I think -- even if understandable -- that special ed teachers would choose to lead a vendetta against, of all people, Matt Goodlaxson. Whether you know it or not he has been, and remains, your primary champion in a District with very few special ed champions. Weakening him, as this does, thereby weakens you as well.

But I have long encouraged teachers to speak out more, not less, on the issues before our District and Board. That is an end, in my mind, much more important than the content of what is said. So I thank you for organizing and taking the time to present your input as you have.

Nick

RESPONSE TO BOARD PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT

    We are truly outraged and disappointed by the statement Matt Goodlaxson made regarding Special Education teachers and services at the April 10, 2001 Board of Directors meeting.  It is our view that Mr. Goodlaxson abused his position as President by making this derogatory statement.

    In the ICCSD approved Board Policies adopted on 11/23/99, the President's role is clearly stated, "the President will ensure deliberation is fair, open, and thorough.."  Also, "the President will ensure there is an opportunity for input from individuals and organizations, including staff and affiliated organizations, that have expertise and interests specifically related to Board decisions and Board policies."  Unfortunately, Mr. Goodlaxson did not adhere to his role as President.  He did not list his concern on the Board's agenda. Instead Mr. Goodlaxson read his prepared statement during the Open Discussion portion of the meeting to a highly anticipated large audience.  It seemed to be a strategic attack which did not give anyone with expertise in Special Education a chance to explain or defend his accusations.

    In the ICCSD Board of Directors Code of Conduct, also listed in the Board Policies adopted on 11/23/99 states, "Board members should represent the interests of the citizens of the entire school district.  This accountability to the whole school district supersedes any conflicting loyalty to other advocacy or interest groups..It also supersedes the personal interest of any Board member who is a stakeholder of the District."  Furthermore, it states, "Members shall not publicly make or express individual negative judgments about staff performance."  We feel that Mr. Goodlaxson ignored his Code of Conduct duties when he used his position to publicly express his personal views of ICCSD Special Education program and when he explained the incident his family witnessed in one of our schools. If Mr. Goodlaxson has a complaint with our District's Special Education program he needs to use the proper channels which are outlined in the Procedural Safeguards Manual for Parents.  (A copy will be provided to each Board member.) He should not use his position as President to accomplish his personal agenda.

Respectfully,

Margaret Bottorff  (All listed are ICCSD Special Education teachers)
Jill Perkins
Paul Knedler
Denise Yoder
S. Dvorsky
Mark Moody
Karla Puettman
Melissa Solinger
Anne Dennis
Suzy Piper
Chrisitna Welu
Mindy Wieland
Geri Kachingwe
Mary Eileen Hogan
Beth Peterson
Gail Swartzendruber
Nancy Kaiser
Jay Beaver
Sarah Majerick
Sharon Wiser
 Cheryl Neely
Barb Greene
Nancy Kaiser
Marnie Saeugling
Lorraine Kent
Steve Merkle
Robin Torner
Kristy Heffner
Mike Rose
Amber Brown
Mona Ball
Fran Ostroff
Kathy Claussen
Allyson Shames
Nancy Ritter
Melody Strom

1. For example, his statement included the following comment: "This does not mean that there are not dedicated or even excellent IEP teams working in this district. Or that all IEPs are currently going unmet. What it  has meant to me is that we do not have a working or reliable system to deal with problems of this nature when they occur." [This endnote was not included in the e-mail, but was thought to be worth including here by way of illustration. The entire statement, as indicated above, is available in the Web-posted Board minutes.