Review of KSD Reports to the Community by Tom Staly

Elementary Report to the Community at ESD 123 on October 29, 2010 (posted on KSD Citizens November 5, 2010)

Secondary Report to the Community on November 5, 2010 (posted on KSD Citizens November 18, 2010)

In opening each program, Superintendent Dave Bond described the purposes: to engage the community in understanding student academic performance, share data to explain how KSD is helping students reach or exceed education standards and receive community recommendations.

The goals are merit worthy but I do not believe they were achieved in these two sessions.

Let’s review.  I saw one newspaper ad for community members to apply for participation in the programs.  After calling the district office I was approved to attend both sessions. 

Fifteen community members were present for the elementary school report which was delivered by 24 school district representatives.  The building principals and district administrators were away from their workplaces from 8 AM to 4 PM. 

Sixteen community members attended the secondary school program but 5 or 6 left before the afternoon session.  There were 21 school district representatives. Most principals and district administrators were out of their buildings for the day.

The two all day sessions were instructive for the few citizens attending.  But with 31 participants out of what I estimate to be between 4,000 to 5,000 Kennewick families with students in school, the group was not representative of the “community”.  Participants would either have to be retired or arrange time away from work to attend.  Most working parents would choose not to take part.

The first goal was not met.

There was plenty of data to be shared.  The tables of numbers were presented rapidly with no time for study or evaluation.  My head was spinning from the blizzard of information illustrating the progress of students’ standardized test scores over several school years.  And I’ve had previous experience with school test data. 

Some speakers would present data showing no growth or even regression then state they did not know what was going on with those numbers.  Their follow up was declaring the data would need more study to decide what to do for improvement.  For the district to hold these programs and not be clear about the meaning of some data or not know how it might be used for policy making or development of curriculum and instruction was counter to the stated purpose.

The principals’ presentations were most interesting and informative.  Details about individual schools revealed the diversity within our community.  Implicit in the comparison of schools is the expectation they will achieve similar results with students which creates exceptional challenges for teachers and administrators in buildings impacted by poverty. 

Kennewick teachers and administrators are working diligently to educate students.  Dedication to success is clear.  What is less clear to the public is how the data meaningfully characterizes the performance of district programs.  Time was not sufficient for exploring this.  And I doubt that most people would want to sit through a presentation sufficiently long enough to adequately explain the data’s connection to student performance.  Displays of numbers are inherently dull stuff and this was the least interesting part of the presentations.  Bond’s observation that state test scores present unusual volatility further confounds this issue.

While it is certain KSD is determined to help students succeed, the goal of using data to make that more understandable was not met.  

The issue of citizen recommendations is most problematic to me. 

With Kennewick’s minority student population over 30% it is fair to say there was not a random or representative sample of district patrons at either program.  Yet the participants were asked to write their recommendations to help the school board and administration make decisions about Kennewick schools.  The 31 participants would be representing the views of 4,000 or more school district families. 

As a taxpayer and school supporter I am not comfortable with that. 

I understand these events were proposed by one or two school board members who directed district administration to prepare the programs.  Given that this was the first application of this format there are lessons to take away. 

During the November 17 school board meeting, Bond reported that the school board and administration will debrief the experiences of the two presentations. At a January workshop it will be decided whether to repeat this program.  If the district decides to continue this format next year, the program needs to be structured to more effectively meet its goals.