I’m writing this open thread in advance of the school board meeting and scheduling it to appear after the meeting is over. What are your thoughts about how the meeting went?

Peoria Public Schools Superintendent Ken Hinton’s employment contract comes up for renewal at Monday night’s school board meeting. No doubt it will be approved. But how good of a job do you think he’s doing?

Hinton’s current (2007-2008) contract includes some specific performance goals for the 2007-2008 School Year. They are included in “Addendum B.”

ADDENDUM B
Superintendent’s Goals
2007-2008 School Year

1. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
   1. Increase the percentage of students making AYP and decrease the number of schools not making AYP
   2. Complete and implement the Restructuring Plan for Manual High School
   3. Identify what the Achievement Gap is in District 150 and develop strategies to address the gap as it pertains to race and class
   4. During the year, put together a team to address the over-identification of minority students and delivery of service for special education
   5. Put a team together and implement strategies to improve the academic performance, programs and structures of the high schools
2. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
   1. Meet budget projections to stay on target for balancing the budget
3. QUALITY STAFF
   1. Develop a performance based evaluation instrument for central and building administrators
4. SAFE, CARING ENVIRONMENTS
   1. Develop a plan for the Board and achieve community consensus for an alternative school
5. CULTURE OF CUSTOMER SERVICE
   1. Develop for all staff a series of professional development opportunities on improving customer service
   2. Develop a communications plan to improve the District’s image in the community

Obviously, I would have no way of knowing if he’s met all of these goals since several of them deal with the internal workings of the district. Nevertheless, since he’s a public servant (and the highest paid one in Peoria, City Councilman Bill Spears reminded us recently), I think it’s fair for the public that pays his salary to assess him on the basis of what we do know.

So, starting at the top (1.1), has the percentage of students making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) increased in the 2007-2008 school year? Well, we don’t know yet, because school test results generally come out in the fall. However, those test results are public information once they are released, so we can look at past performance. From 2005 to 2007, the percentage of students meeting and exceeding standards has indeed increased a little each year:

Even though the overall scores are up, in order for the district to meet AYP, “they must achieve the goals in all eight of the sub groups – White, African-American, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, LEP, Students with Disabilities and Economically disadvantaged,” according to District 150 Director of Research Bryan Chumbley at the Sept. 17, 2007, school board meeting.

Mr. Chumbley reported on the progress of the District, we did not make AYP for the fourth consecutive year. Five out of eight subgroups are making AYP in reading and 7 out of 8 subgroups are making AYP in mathematics. The district saw modest increases in five subgroups in reading and modest increases in seven subgroups in math.

What about the second part of that goal? Has the number of schools not making AYP decreased? Well, yes, but not because the schools started making AYP. Rather, it’s because the school board has simply been closing failing schools. This year, they closed Loucks (which hasn’t been meeting AYP), so voila! The number of schools not making AYP decreases by one. Quite an ingenious way of meeting that part of the goal.

Goal 1.2 has to do with the Manual High School restructuring plan. That’s been completed and implemented, so that goal is met.

If Hinton has done anything about goals 1.3 through 1.5, it must all be internal, since I’ve seen no information on those items being reported in the press, and I’ve heard of no call to the public to be involved on any of the teams he’s tasked with putting together.

Goal 2 regards fiscal responsibility. Because of a projected loss of $1.4 million in revenue, Hinton had to come up with a way to “meet budget projections.” He decided to do it by (1) closing Loucks Edison, (2) cutting the school day for primary students, and (3) delaying the purchase of new school buses.

Goal 3 is also internal.

Regarding goal 4, is anyone aware of any plan or “community consensus” for an alternative school? I can’t find anything using the terminology of “alternative school,” but perhaps this goal is being met by Hinton’s research into charter schools or a math/science academy for the Renaissance Park area. Still, even if there is some study or planning going on, there’s certainly no “community consensus.”

Ah, goal 5, a “culture of customer service.” One of the things that has gotten lumped under here over the past year is the Pacific Institute training. Freedom of Information Act requests also get reported under this heading at each school board meeting. But it’s clear that Hinton has created no communications plan at all, let alone one that “improve[s] the District’s image in the community.”

And that last point is Hinton’s biggest downfall. If there were better communication, if parents felt like their concerns were seriously being considered, and if a spirit of collaboration existed between the board, the administration, and the parents, I think most of any superintendent’s weak points could be looked upon with more grace. But when parents are treated like adversaries, they start acting like adversaries. No one wins in that scenario; and the ones who suffer the biggest loss are the children.

So, let’s see that communication plan, Mr. Hinton. And please give it to us directly — not through the press. Direct talks would be a really good first step.

I got a chance to talk with Diane Vespa regarding Ken Hinton’s announcement today. She had gone to the district’s offices at 10:30 to attend the press conference, and I wanted to hear what she thought of Ken Hinton’s latest plan. Imagine my surprise when she told me she wasn’t allowed into the press conference.

“You can’t go in,” she was told. “This is for press only.”

So Diane didn’t know any more about Hinton’s plan than I did — that is, she only knew what had been reported so far in the press. I suppose there’s nothing unusual, per se, about a press conference being restricted to press only. But here Diane was the only private citizen at the press conference, she’s the leader of the District 150 Watch group that has been trying to work with board members and administrators to find an alternative to the 45-minute school-day cut that was approved back on May 5, and she’s a parent of two District 150 primary school students. What purpose did denying her access to the press conference serve? Were they afraid she would be belligerent and disruptive or something? And why wouldn’t parents be welcomed by the school administrator when he’s announcing a new proposal that is supposed to be so beneficial to their children?

This episode illustrates all too well the school administration’s insulary nature. They don’t include the parents in making important educational decisions. They simply make decisions in isolation and then take a defensive posture toward anyone that would question them. It’s kind of ironic that they see the value of collaboration when it comes to teacher preparation, but they see no value in collaborating with parents on issues affecting their own children’s education.

One thing that concerns Diane is a comment she heard repeated by several members of the press. Evidently, Hinton made a point of saying he’s recommending this change because he recognizes “it’s been hard on people’s schedules” and on the schedules of “working parents.” Vespa wonders if Hinton is missing the point.

“When they [District 150] try to reduce it down to a babysitting issue, it shows a clear lack of understanding of the parents’ concerns,” Vespa said. “If they think parents are upset about this simply because it interferes with their work schedules, that’s offensive. We’re engaged in this because we care about the quality of education that our children are getting.”

Hinton apparently presented the new plan predominantly from a scheduling perspective, without addressing how this plan will help improve student achievement. Yet student achievement is the primary concern. Hinton can’t just write this protest off as being about child care and scheduling. He needs to show how cutting instructional time at schools that are already failing to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) is going to help those children achieve more. Or to put it another way, how will adding common prep time more than compensate for the corresponding loss of instructional time each week?

It’s easy to hide from parents by kicking them out of press conferences, but they can’t hide from the issues.

District 150 Superintendent Ken Hinton is now proposing a new plan. Instead of cutting 45 minutes out of every school day, he’s proposing to cut 90 minutes out of Wednesdays. Under this new plan, children would be dismissed at 1:45 p.m. on Wednesdays, but teachers would stay and use that time for common prep.

Let’s compare apples to apples here. Per week, this means that instead of cutting 3.75 hours from the students’ school day, they would be cutting only 1.5 hours. Per day, this means that instead of cutting 45 minutes, they would be cutting an average of 18 minutes. I suppose this is Hinton’s way of trying to meet parents halfway — in fact, 60% of the way, since he’s restoring 2.25 hours of the 3.75 he was originally planning to cut.

Granted, 18 is better than 45. But it doesn’t resolve the issue. Under this plan, we would still have kids in failing schools attending less time each week. We’d still have fifth-graders in primary schools getting 18 minutes less per day (54 hours over the course of a 180-day school year) than fifth-graders in middle schools.

It looks like Mr. Hinton is on the right track — he just needs to go the other 40% of the way.

A press conference has been called for today at 10:30 a.m. at District 150 offices. Superintendent Ken Hinton will be addressing the 45-minute reduction in primary school schedules.

Editor’s note: This is a guest posting from my friend and fellow commissioner on the Heart of Peoria Commission, Beth Akeson. Please note that the comments you leave on this post will be forwarded to Beth.

Tuesday, I attended a District 150 Building Committee meeting. They reviewed the schematic design of the new Harrison Birth through Eighth Grade Community Learning Center.

It was noticed as a “public” meeting since more than two school board members would be in attendance. The meeting was scheduled to last two hours starting at noon and was located in the Superintendent’s conference room at the administration building. I was the only member of the public in attendance except for a couple of people from a local news station and they left early.

Attending the meeting were members of the building committee; Rachael Parker, Jim Stowell and Debbie Wolfmeyer. Ken Hinton, Guy Cahill, Dave Ryon were there representing the administration. David Walvoord, District 150’s attorney, and Julie Cramer, the school board secretary sat in as well. I have no idea why they were there. David Walvord made no comments and was asked no questions. I did not see Julie Cramer taking notes.

Each person at the table was either a paid administrator, outside paid advisor (attorney and architects) or an elected official. What is the purpose of having a public meeting if the public is not in attendance in significant numbers, unable to watch from home and not able to offer suggestions?

The plan for the new Harrison school is definitely suburban in concept. After the meeting I talked with the local LZT architect, David Henebry, and I asked why the suburban design? He said the area is not urban and never will be. Funny, that is not how it appears if you base urban versus suburban on whether there is a grid pattern of streets. Did they ask the PHA what they are planning or have they read the Heart of Peoria Plan? We need to be building for the future with less dependence on automobiles.

The proposed Harrison Birth through Eight Grade Learning Center is a one story building, set back from the street with on-site parking [see artist’s rendering at the top of this post]. The price of gas is now over $4.00 per gallon and it will climb higher. Childhood obesity and limited auto ownership are prevalent in poor neighborhoods and yet there was no discussion about creating a walkable environment; the plans are totally auto centric. There was no mention of sustainability and LEED certification.

District 150 is planning an unremarkable, factory type school building and the only guiding principle given to the architects seems to be building as inexpensively as possible. The building is suburban and uninspiring. As the presentation went on Ken Hinton asked the architect about a tower depicted in the rendering and the architect responded:

…it represents a feature to give some importance to the entrance, since this is a single story and economical building…

Could it be he was trying to say in a diplomatic way that the building’s envelope is just run of the mill?

After the schematic renderings were presented there were few questions. Jim Stowell asked about “water reclamation” which stumped the architect since reclamation is the “reuse” of the building’s water. Eventually, the architect realized Stowell was asking about storm water runoff management. The architect assured him they would be meeting the city’s requirements

Jim’s question made me think: If he is really concerned about conservation maybe he could investigate how District 150 determined it to be more desirable to build new buildings and not restore and modernize the existing buildings? There are many examples in other cities of older buildings restored with well designed new additions. I have attached a PDF for examples [see below]. The problem with Peoria is we have not had good experience with either.

If the building committee had consulted an architect familiar with school restoration or renovation, as I have, they would have been told that as much as twenty-five percent of the cost of building a new building lies in preparing the site, laying the building’s foundation, and installing utilities. Another twenty-five percent goes toward the building structure—its framing, walls, and roof. With an historic building, you already have those components in place. Wouldn’t that translate into cost savings and conservation?

The citizenry needs to weigh in on this design and the building’s siting. Commenting during the obligatory public hearing will be too late. District 150 officials hand picked people to give programming suggestions and they have not given the public any opportunity to discuss how the building meets the street. If they are worried about too much community push-back then maybe the design deserves the scrutiny. However, if the designs are truly impressive why wouldn’t they want to show the public the renderings at every step? I think the answers are obvious.

Additionally, I do not believe they have anyone in house with design expertise to give necessary guidance.

Harrison’s Budget

Next, they presented the building’s confirmed budget, but the cost estimate will not be determined until it is let out for bid. The architects suggested that the board make a list of what they would be willing to give up in the event of cost overruns.

The architects suggested they could eliminate the health clinic, room partitions, adult education space, and outdoor basketball courts if the bid is over budget.

The group made no decisions and someone suggested the school board’s committee of the whole would have to be included in this decision. There was no mention of asking the public for their opinion and since it will be discussed during a committee of the whole meeting it will not be televised and it will most likely be during the middle of the day.

The real kicker came when the board was told the budget would not provide for interior furniture, technology, phone system, community garden, water playground, and outdoor amphitheater. The budget only covers the hard costs of construction and soft costs of design.

For me, witnessing this meeting was frustrating. I ran for the school board, and since I lost, I do not want to appear as if I am being hypercritical of District 150. I do not want to give heartburn to our volunteer school board. Yet, after today’s meeting someone needs to start asking some questions and raise the level of expectation.

Our school board has to be informed in order to make the best decisions. When the architects opened the floor for discussion only a few basic questions were asked and no comments were made, except for the usual thank you. Guy Cahill ran the meeting and Ken Hinton continued to say over and over again something to the effect of “I will keep quiet,” “I will not talk.” I was puzzled why the superintendent would make such a comment and say it more than once.

No one questioned the design, the layout, or asked for comparables. Unfortunately, the public’s window of opportunity to weigh in is shrinking and decisions are being made by individuals with limited appreciation of the urban planning task at hand. They are missing a major opportunity and the city will suffer the consequences.

Yesterday, I attended the building committee meeting where the plans for Glen Oak School were presented. I am working on a post to summarize that meeting too. Let’s say for now I was equally unimpressed.

Resources for further reading:

Great Schools By Design (Akron Report)
Historic Neighborhood Schools Deliver 21st Century Education
New Schools for Older Neighborhoods
Planning Schools to Fight Obesity
The Case for Renovation
School Design Guidelines
School Siting Handbook