Download meeting agendas here:
Note: minutes of school board meetings are not presently available for these three most recent meetings so only agendas are shown here.
I attended both May school board meetings and will comment about some observations. A major point of business during the May 12 meeting was adoption of the district-wide science curriculum. Following a thorough presentation by Chuck Lybeck, board member Kathy White moved to approve the adoption. The other board members looked at each other but made no second (board member Wendy London was not present at this meeting). Lynn Fielding initiated discussion of the adoption which continued for half an hour or more. At times I strained to hear the discussion because Fielding would lean back away from his microphone and speak facing two other board members. In responding to written parent comments about science materials Fielding and Dawn Adams questioned the adequacy of parent involvement in the process. Lybeck endured a grilling from Fielding who was not satisfied with the process or the textbooks chosen by the staff and administration. Fielding expressed cynicism about the adoption process noting reading adoptions have been problematic with texts not aligning with the curriculum. Dave Bond reminded the board that district staff employed a school board approved adoption process and chose from among the best rated texts evaluated by comparison to state standards by OSPI. Bond also commented that school boards usually do not review text books but review the process of adoption. Fielding insisted parents be given another opportunity to review science materials and Lybeck agreed to provide that. The motion to adopt was tabled.
The conduct of business raises several questions. Does the board follow meeting rules of order? It did not appear to in this instance. There was a last-minute procedural change in the district adoption process. Is this appropriate? The board exhibited an apparent distrust of administration and staff to manage a professional science curriculum adoption. How will this be perceived by the science teachers who worked four months examining materials and making their best judgments? Is the board acting in the role of managers instead of policy makers?
During the May 26 meeting Fielding again leaned back in his chair away from his microphone to speak toward two other board members. The resultant mumbling was sometimes difficult to follow. If board members truly want the public to participate in the process of school board meetings it would serve the public better to speak to the audience using the microphones as they are intended. Vic Roberts reported on the Worker’s Compensation Actuarial Study. KSD has been self-insured since May of 2006. The issue is that KSD’s safety record is not good when compared to state and national averages so costs in Kennewick are high.
At the May 12 board meeting Fielding had raised his concern about graduation rates in Kennewick schools. During this May 26 meeting Dave Bond presented a 1 hour and 15 minute introduction to the issue of graduation rates. Utilizing slides on a screen to emphasize important points he explained how the district is preparing kids for life after graduation and what is being done to get kids to graduation. Addressing Fielding’s concern Bond made clear current district data is flawed and there is a plan to fix that. Consequently, the actual graduation rate of Kennewick students is not known. Bond believes before the district can develop a plan to improve graduation rates it is necessary to understand what is needed. Bond and the board will continue this discussion at future meetings and workshops. It is important to improve tracking data and Bond stated the district will show improved record keeping by next October.
I was fascinated by Bond’s well prepared and documented presentation. This was an important learning opportunity. Unfortunately, there were distractions from at least one impatient board member, Adams, who was focused on the number of slides supporting Bond’s program and commented several times about how many slides remained to be seen. Bond stayed cool, on task and professional and always spoke to be heard by the board and the audience.
Board member London inquired about need for a review of staff to improve building and district record keeping. Adams stated the importance of action now to reduce the dropout rate.
District processes for tracking graduation rates may be flawed, but so are those of the State (and perhaps the entire U.S.). No universally agreed upon definition exists and the problem is complicated by the common practice of retaining students in 9th grade status to put off the day when struggling students will have to take 10th grade State exams. Once again, State testing over rides common sense as it applies to children in the system.
It sounds like the President of the Board needs a copy of Robert’s Rules of Order. Here is a link to a site that has an abbreviated version which can be downloaded, printed, and carried in your pocket.
The link didn’t copy over. I will try again: http://www.robertsrules.org/