Category Archives: school boards

It Is Most Definitely Political. So What?

It’s already shaping up to be a long school election campaign season and I may spend it fruitlessly pushing back against nonsense, but I can’t let a few things in KCRG’s coverage of One Community – One Bond pass without comment:

“This isn’t a political issue. This is a public school issue. If you believe in education you believe in the bond,” Pilcher- Hayek said.

Totally weird, right? Because if it isn’t a political issue, why is she speaking on behalf of a political action committee?

Political action is how those of us who choose to be involved participate in the governance of our public schools. Maybe we pay attention and vote. Maybe we speak and/or write about issues. Maybe we attend meetings. Maybe we put up yard signs. Maybe we give money to candidate committees or political action committees. Some of us even run for office or organize political action committees. There is nothing weird or shameful about political activity. And I guess I’ll just keep repeating that as needed.

But there’s also the framing of the bond issue in Pilcher-Hayek’s comments and Kirschling’s comments:

School Board member Brian Kirschling says community support is necessary.

“It’s no secret in the last year, we’ve seen some changes in the national level, in the state level that don’t necessarily support public education, and this is our community’s chance to up or down a vote on education,” he said.

People have all kinds of reasons for voting (or not voting). Maybe the ballot issue for some people is a referendum broadly on (public) education or whether we care about kids or the district administration or the current (or previous) school board. But people can support public education and care about kids and still reject this particular bond proposal. And people can support this particular bond proposal without supporting the district administration or the current school board.

But, ultimately, after the votes are totaled on September 12th, all we will really know is whether or not the district will be authorized to issue GO bonds as specified in the approved bond language.

One-stop Shopping for the 2017 ICCSD School Election

Chris Liebig is still on the ICCSD school board, so I’ve agreed to host a one-stop shopping election post again this year. Candidate filing won’t begin until Monday, July 10th and won’t end until Thursday, August 3rd at 5 pm. However, with the ballot issue language set, and with information presentations about it and advocacy to pass it already underway, it makes sense to get this post up and running sooner rather than later.

I will be using this post as a collection point for information about the 2017 ICCSD regular school election scheduled for Tuesday, September 12th. I will continue to add information here as it becomes available. If you see that I have missed something, as surely I will, please suggest additional links in the comments, by e-mail, or by Twitter.


Three four-year school board seats are up for election, as well as one two-year school board seat, to fill the remainder of Director LaTasha DeLoach’s unexpired term which became open with her resignation effective July 14th. There will also be a general obligation bond (GO bond) ballot issue, intended to fund the remaining projects on the district’s ten-year facilities master plan (FMP), which was last updated in January of this year. There is also an effort underway to petition for a ballot question related to demolition of the Hoover Elementary School building (see new section added below for more information).

Early voting begins Monday, August 21st and runs through Monday, September 11th. Find the details on early voting and satellite voting dates and locations here.

Polls will be open from 7 am to 8 pm on election day, Tuesday, September 12th. Your school polling place may be different from your regular election polling place. Find your school polling place here.

Election Results

Follow @jcauditor on Twitter for updates throughout election day. Turnout by precinct will be posted here and updated several times throughout election day. Results by precinct will be posted here starting after polls close at 8 pm on election day, as returns are become available (refresh the page periodically to follow as results are added).

  • Early voting: 5532 ballots requested (5347 returned as of 10:48 am today) 7.58% turnout
  • 9 am: 1262 voters 1.73% turnout
  • 11 am: 2615 voters 3.59% turnout
  • 3 pm: 5431 voters 7.45% turnout
  • 6 pm: 8881 voters 12.18% turnout
  • 8 pm:


Candidate Statements and Profiles

Candidates for the four-year seats

Candidates for the two-year seat

Campaign Websites, Social Media, and Campaign Reports

Campaign reports filed with the Iowa Ethics & Campaign Disclosure Board may include a short form attribution filing (DR-SFA) or a DR-1 Statement of Organization. Candidates who exceed $1,000 in donations, expenditures, or debt must file a DR-1 Statement of Organization (candidate’s committee) and a DR-2 Disclosure Summary Page, with attached reports, will be due five days prior to the election, and January 19, 2018. DR-2 attachments may include information about contributions (Schedule A), expenditures (Schedule B), debts (Schedule D), in-kind contributions (Schedule E), loans (Schedule F), or consultants (Schedule G).

Candidates for the four-year seats

Candidates for the two-year seat

Candidate Questionnaires

Debates and Candidate Forums

  • Political Party Live! Roundtable: One Community. One Bond, hosted by The Political Party, in partnership with Mission Iowa City; Thursday, July 27th from 6 pm to 8 pm at Mosley’s, 525 S. Gilbert St., Iowa City.
  • Community Rocks! Rally for the School Board Vote,  hosted by Kelly Garrett and Rachel Korach Howell and sponsored in part by Fourth Room Theatre; Saturday, August 5th from 5 pm to 9 pm at 901 Melrose Ave, Iowa City.
  • ICCSD School Bond Forum, hosted by the League of Women Voters of Johnson County; Wednesday, August 16th from 7 pm to 8 pm at the Iowa City City Council Chambers. Video.
  • Special Education Forum: ICCSD School Board Candidates, hosted by The Village Community and Intra-National Home Health Care, LLC; Monday, August 28th from 6 pm to 8 pm at the Iowa City Public Library, meeting rooms A/B. Video.
  • School Board Candidate Forum, co-organized by the Iowa City Education Association and the Press-Citizen; Tuesday, August 29th from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm at the Iowa City Public Library, meeting rooms A, B, and C. Video.
  • School Board Candidate Forum, hosted by the Iowa City Chamber of Commerce; Wednesday, August 30th from 6 pm to 8 pm at the Coralville Public Library, Schwab Auditorium. Video.
  • Education Exchange, Thursday, August 31st at 6 pm at the Iowa City Public Library, meeting room A.

Bonus Education Exchange videos on the lighter side of the candidates:

Claussen, Eyestone, and Godwin

Westemeyer, Eastham, and Woltman (with Malone’s answers read by co-hosts)


Shall the Board of Directors of the Iowa City Community School District in the County of Johnson, State of Iowa, be authorized to contract indebtedness and issue General Obligation Bonds in an amount not to exceed $191,525,000 to provide funds to address health, safety, and accessibility issues in all school buildings, including air conditioning all school buildings, reducing the use of  temporary classroom structures in the District, addressing classroom, lunchroom, and gymnasium overcrowding, and dedicating rooms to art, music, prekindergarten, and science by constructing, furnishing and equipping a new building, constructing additions to and/or remodeling, repairing, and improving the school buildings remaining in the District’s Facilities Master Plan, as follows:  Mann and Lincoln renovations, Liberty High athletic facilities construction and site improvements, new elementary school construction in North Liberty and site improvements, West High renovation, South East and North Central Junior High additions, Shimek renovation, City High addition and upgrades, Wood addition, Wickham upgrades, Garner and Northwest additions, Liberty High addition, Horn renovation, Kirkwood addition, Borlaug, Alexander, and Lemme additions, and Tate High addition and upgrades?


Ballot Issue PACs have different reporting deadlines than school board campaign committees. DR-2 Disclosure Summary Page, with attached reports, will be due May 19, July 19, five days prior to the election, October 19, and January 19, 2018. DR-2 attachments may include information about contributions (Schedule A), expenditures (Schedule B), debts (Schedule D), in-kind contributions (Schedule E), loans (Schedule F), or consultants (Schedule G).

Other Links


Save Hoover Elementary is collecting signatures to petition to have the following language included on the ballot for the September 12th school election:

Shall the Iowa City Community School District in the County of Johnson, State of Iowa, demolish the building known as Hoover Elementary School, located at 2200 East Court Street in Iowa City, after the completion of the 2018-19 school year, with the proceeds of any resulting salvage to be applied as specified in Iowa Code section 297.22(b)?

Other Links


Articles and posts substantively discussing the school board election. See Candidate Statements and Profiles for articles about individual candidates announcing campaigns, candidate profiles, and candidate statements.


“We’re Not Entertainers, and This Isn’t a Bouncy Castle”*

I have sometimes heard that curriculum and instruction should be left to the professionals, sometimes as a reason school boards should stick to setting student achievement targets and leaving how to get there to the superintendent. So,  a few thoughts.

To talk about curriculum and instruction is to talk about the purpose of our schools, about our educational values. The curriculum and instruction offered by public schools–publicly funded and publicly governed through an elected school board–is, inescapably, a matter of public concern.

You wouldn’t know it from the lack of debate in our community, but there are public debates about curriculum and instruction going on in many other communities. The math wars, phonics versus balanced literacy, 21st century skills versus knowledge, and so on. It isn’t impossibly hard to get up to speed on these debates. Bennett’s Teacher Proof: Why Research in Education Doesn’t Always Mean What It Claims, and What You Can Do About It and Christodoulou’s Seven Myths about Education are particularly good places to start, as they both speak directly to the evidence basis of some current educational practices and guiding ideas, which matters as we aim for evidence-based universal instruction.

Christodoulou’s book is really focused on the importance of knowledge and evidence that facts and subject content knowledge are not in opposition to, but in fact support conceptual understanding, critical thinking, creativity, or whatever supposed “higher-order” thinking skill one prefers to facts. Christodoulou organizes her chapters into evidence establishing the myth is influencing practice and then examines modern research or evidence that demonstrates why the myth is a myth.

In Part I of his book, Bennett provides an overview of the difficulties of social science and educational science research and translating that research into practice. In Part II of his book, Bennett examines the research or evidence basis of currently or recently popular educational practices and ideas.

Spoiler alert: There isn’t much, if any, evidence supporting the educational practices and ideas discussed in these two books, as you might guess from the use of the word myth in Christodoulou’s title or if you knew that Part II of Bennett’s book is titled “Voodoo teaching.” There is far too much good material in these books for me to tackle in a blogpost or two, so instead of trying to summarize all of the arguments, research, and evidence presented in these books, I want to try to collect some links here to demonstrate that some of the educational practices and ideas described in these books are alive and well in Iowa. [Note: I’ve read both these books on a Kindle reader with no page numbers, so I’ll be making references to chapters.]

Christodoulou’s Myth 1: Facts prevent understanding [Chapter 1]. Christodoulou presents evidence of facts and content knowledge being stripped out of standards, with a focus on skills or understanding, as if we could have those without facts and content knowledge (we can’t).

This is a problem in Iowa, too, starting at the top with the Department of Education (DE). See for example, the proposed draft social studies standards, focused on “civic competence” as understanding and skills–light on content, but kids, starting in Kindergarten, are going to get a lot of practice writing letters to the editor. Here are two statements from the DE website subtly disparaging acquisition of factual knowledge as “rote memorization”, the first one about social studies instruction,:

It goes without saying that Iowa’s History Teacher of the Year knows a thing or two about history. But he may know even more on how to make history come alive, engaging students to pursue a subject that in the past emphasized rote memorization of dates and places.

And a second one about science instruction:

The new science standards are unlike anything we’ve ever seen before. They don’t put as much emphasis on content facts that teachers need to deliver to students in a classroom, but instead focus on what students should be able to do with the content they have learned.

The standards focus on student application of science content and skills versus the rote memorization of content facts. The standards are written to focus on teaching students how to be scientists and do science versus separating out the skills and content from the standards. By teaching students in a manner that makes them feel like a “real” scientist, we will be able to foster a sense of curiosity, increase creativity, boost confidence, and strengthen critical thinking skills.

Christodoulou’s Myth 2: Teacher-led instruction is passive [Chapter 2]If you are skeptical of the value of facts, you will probably also be skeptical of the value of the teacher-led instruction that effectively assists students to acquire factual and subject content knowledge in favor of teacher as facilitator, discovery or minimal guidance instruction. [See Nick Gibb: the evidence in favour of teacher-led instruction for a short run down of the evidence.]

You don’t have to look much further than our district’s motto (child-centered: future focused) for evidence that skepticism of teacher-led instruction is also an issue here. See also, for example, the district science curriculum review report that lists the following two points among the strengths of district science instructional methods:

  • Teachers are utilizing a student-centered, activity based approach to teaching science.
  • Students at all levels are involved in inquiry investigations and collaborate with their peers.

Christodoulou returns to this theme in chapter six, where she examines the myth that projects and activities are the best way to learn.

Christodoulou’s Myth 3: The 21st century fundamentally changes everything [Chapter 3]. It just doesn’t. If you are paying attention at all, it should be obvious that ideas about 21st century education are driving an awful lot of decision-making and spending in our “future focused” district right now, from 1:1 Chromebooks at the secondary level to serving as part of the FMP/GO bond sales pitch:

Christodoulou has some important commentary in this chapter that this idea about the 21st century being fundamentally different, and the actual technology difference, can be used to push content knowledge out of the curriculum, and thus deprive children of the opportunity to learn what they need to know to develop 21st century skills (which are actually not unique to the 21st century). However, here we’ll pop over to Bennett’s book, Teacher Proof, for some of his pull-no-punches words on 21st century skills and technology.

From chapter 9, titled “Buck Rogers and the twenty-first-century curriculum”, Bennett sums up the evidence for the 21st century skills movement as follows:

21st Century Skills: nice rhetoric, but empty of any evidence to back up its terrifying, prescient claims. Every time I hear a claim made by the movement about the absolute, vital, and over-reaching necessity that everyone, everywhere suddenly adopt these practices, I check out where they get their opinions from and find that, yes, they really are opinions. Opinions, based on opinions, based on opinions and we’re back to the turtles all the way down again. It seems a tremendously shaky platform, by which to base a transformation of the entire education sector. It seems a bad grounding by which schools are turned upside down, classrooms flipped and content stripped from the classroom. But there it is; it’s how it’s been justified, and it’s still happening. I kind of feel it’s my duty to point this out as often as possible because so much is happening so fast and on such little evidence; in fact, no evidence. It is, in the clearest possible way, a scandal.

There is loads more where that came from, but we’ll dash over to Bennett’s chapter 10 now, titled “Techno, techno, techno, TECHNO: Digital natives in flipped classrooms”, described by Bennett as “the Temple of Doom to 21st Century Skills’ Lost Ark.”

I think here we can remember that district administrators have already acknowledged that research does not support an expectation that student achievement will be increased by our technology programs. Here’s Bennett’s take on IT:

Use IT if it suits your style. Use it if it helps you. But don’t use it because you must, and certainly (if you have a budget for such things) don’t buy it because you don’t know what else to do. Good teaching relies on things that have been around for millennia: good subject knowledge; good classroom control; good communication skills; heart and guts. You don’t need anything else. Maybe a pen, if you’re feeling profligate. Everything else is chaff. Everything else obscures the teacher. I don’t need a damn thing other than my voice and a room full of kids. The rest is bull, dressed up as Buck Rogers.

I’m exhausted, and we haven’t reached Christodoulou’s chapter 6 on Myth 6: Projects and activities are the best way to learn (which calls into question the underlying premises of our statewide science and proposed draft social studies standards) or most of Bennett’s chapters on voodoo teaching that may or may not be relevant to us, including:

  • Multiple intelligences: if everyone’s smart, no one is (chapter 5)
  • Group work: failing better, together (chapter 7)
  • There are no such things as learning styles (chapter 12)
  • Game over: the gamification of education (chapter 13)
  • Learning to learn to learn to learn . . . . (chapter 14)

In any case, I haven’t really set out to have the debate about evidence for our curricular and instructional decisions, but encourage you to consider the possibility that this debate is needed. So, I’ll leave you with two more local examples.

Listen carefully to the GO bond presentation above and you’ll hear a reference to an action based learning classroom (right about 1:07:19) followed by an assertion that kids learn in different ways and a comment about brain research. Based on multiple payments made for purchases of materials and training (accounts payable 2/24/15, 3/24/15, and 6/23/15), I’m guessing that they are Action Based Learning classrooms. Here’s the compelling articles and research page, here’s a reference (book description) that the program is based on–wait for it–multiple intelligences and learning styles, and here’s a handout explaining Action Based Learning.

Check out this recent ICCSD Innovation & Technology Blog post, listing a benefit of technology program upgrades as being able to “facilitate promising new pedagogical approaches such as blended learning and personalized learning,  among myriad other benefits.” [Links within the quotes are from the original blog post.] The personalized learning link leads to an ISTE article with this assertion:

Personalized learning capitalizes on today’s students’ almost instinctual ability to use technology, but it is so much more than letting them use iPads, smartphones, whiteboards and other devices in the classroom. It is the purposeful design of instruction to combine face-to-face teaching, technology-assisted instruction and collaboration to leverage each student’s learning style and interests for deeper learning.

Digital natives and leveraging learning styles? Awesome. We really need to talk as a community, sooner rather than later.

*The title of this post is taken from Bennett’s Teacher Proof, chapter 7 on group work. The downside of having to pick a post title at the outset, is sometimes (more often than not?) a post can end up looking quite different than you anticipated when you set out to write it (weeks ago now). But I like it and I’m too tired to cast about for something better. So here’s the quote with more context:

There is nothing wrong with injecting a bit of fun into an activity by putting them in teams or getting them to cooperate with each other in a way that they find pleasant. As long as you remember that fun is an extrinsic aim of education, not an intrinsic one. We’re not entertainers, and this isn’t a bouncy castle, and I say that because I take their education seriously, and won’t waste a moment of their time when they could be learning.

ICCSD 2017 School Election Preview

The next regular school election will be held on Tuesday, September 12th. ICCSD expects to have three school board seats up for election, which are the ones currently held by Directors Brian Kirschling, Chris Liebig, and Chris Lynch. There will also be a general obligation bond (GO bond) measure on the ballot.


The candidate filing dates will be Monday, July 10th through Thursday, August 3rd.

At least two prospective candidates have already filed paperwork with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board: J.P. Claussen and Ruthina Malone. Added: Press-Citizen story with comments from Claussen and Malone.

Others considering whether to run may be interested in the Iowa Secretary of State’s Candidate’s Guide to the School Election and the following videos from the Iowa Association of School Boards:

Videos from 2015 ICCSD candidate forums can be found here.

Added: The Johnson County Auditor now has a September 12, 2017 School Election page with signature requirements, and important dates and links.

GO Bond.

Proposed language for the GO Bond was presented at the March 28th board work session. At the work session, it was noted that the reference to West High School there should have been a reference to Tate High School, which I have shown corrected below [updated, per Director Roesler].

Shall the Board of Directors of the Iowa City Community School District in the County of Johnson, State of Iowa, be authorized to contract indebtedness and issue General Obligation Bonds in an amount not to exceed $191,525,000 to provide funds to construct, build, furnish, and equip a new elementary building and improve the site; to construct, improve, furnish and equip athletic facilities at Liberty High School; and to construct additions to and/or remodel, repair, improve, furnish and equip the following school buildings: Alexander, Borlaug, Garner, Horn, Kirkwood, Lemme, Lincoln, Mann, Shimek, Wickham and Wood Elementary buildings, North Central, Northwest, and South East Junior High buildings, and City, Liberty, Tate, and West High School buildings?

Information about the GO Bond and the district facilities master plan can be found on the district website here.

One Community – One Bond, a local ballot issue committee formed to advocate for the passage of the GO bond, has filed with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board.

Updated: One Community – One Bond has a Facebook page, including a list of initial supporters (click “see more under” Story if you don’t see the list). [Updated: One Community-One Bond has removed the list of initial supporters from their about page.] One Community – One Bond has a placeholder website (no content yet) at and is on Twitter as @passthebond.

Curriculum and Instruction

If you have been paying attention to the ICCSD school board, it should not be news that the district has a disappointingly large and persistent achievement gap. We have said we want to see improvements in math, and reading (and presumably science) proficiency. So we have talked about buses and demographically balanced schools through school attendance boundary changes. We have talked about implicit bias training and weighted resource allocation models and preschool and class sizes and the 1:1 Chromebook program and more.

What we are not talking about–at least not publicly, as a community–is curriculum and instruction. I’m pretty sure, for instance, that pest management issues have had more airtime at regular school board meetings than the district plan to implement the Next Generation Science Standards.

So why discuss curriculum and instruction? Besides that if we want better reading results, for example, talking about reading instruction seems the obvious place to start, consider this from an article on the ICCSD achievement gap in The Daily Iowan:

School District Director of Curriculum Diane Schumacher said the achievement gap, which has continued over the past five years, may be attributed to a lack of opportunity, parental involvement, or the English language barrier for Latino students.

“We see the achievement gap with students who are coming from homes that maybe don’t have the same opportunities for educational experiences that some of our other students might,” Schumacher said. “Homes that wouldn’t be able to have their kids going to summer camp, getting outside tutoring, and maybe even some that wouldn’t have their kids accessing pre-school.”

In other words, this seems to be an acknowledgement that district curriculum and instructional practices perpetuate out-of-school social inequities inside of our schools.

In the meantime, at several recent work sessions, we can start to see the opportunity costs* of talking about everything except curriculum and instruction. Embedded below is audio from a board work session in February, cued up to an exchange about the district 1:1 device program set to roll out next school year, which is costing approximately $1.5 million to start for technology upgrades and device purchases. Director Hemingway asks a question about whether we can expect a measurable increase in student achievement.

The answer is no. Administrators can go no further than student engagement may be heightened, attendance may go up, and students need to be able to use technology in the 21st century workplace, because research does not support the conclusion that achievement will increase as a result of the 1:1 Chromebook program.

At an education committee meeting the following week, administrators presented the student achievement action plan:

Student Achievement Action Plan 11-21-16

During the discussion, Director DeLoach asks questions about how we will know the plan is working or whether we will see the same results we already have.

Administrators say they can’t point to anything on the list that will generate particular test score improvements and even that they don’t expect to see movement on achievement data. Maybe it is just me, but it seems like a big problem that our student achievement plan ultimately seems most squarely aimed at improving school climate. If the student achievement plan is really mostly a school climate improvement plan, then we  may still need a student achievement plan.

Interestingly, the very first item on the student achievement plan list, Multi-Tiered Systems of Support Tier 1, should be driving a public discussion about curriculum and instruction. From the Iowa Department of Education website:

The Iowa MTSS framework is made up of five components.

  1. Evidence-based curriculum and instruction provided at the universal level.
  2. Universal screening of all students.
  3. Evidence-based, instructional interventions at the targeted and intensive levels shall be provided to each student who needs them.
  4. Progress monitoring for learners below expectations.
  5. Data-based decision making throughout the system.

The idea is to support student achievement by starting with improvements in classroom curriculum and instruction (universal level) so that fewer children will require instructional interventions. [Improvements here are an opportunity to reduce the need for and importance of outside tutoring, and thus, improve equity in our educational programs.] So, for example, a school (or district) might adopt explicit instruction in synthetic phonics as part of the universal reading curriculum so that fewer children struggle with learning how to read. One would then expect to see reading proficiency rates increase. (Questions: are we making data-based decisions about improving student achievement if we focus on doing things that do not result in measurable, positive changes in achievement? Are we really trying to improve student achievement if we are focused on doing things that we don’t even expect will result in measurable improvements in student achievement data?)

Is the district already providing evidence-based curriculum and instruction at the universal level? We don’t have much evidence to determine that they are, with so little public discussion of curriculum and instruction. In the next post, we will try to answer this question by taking a look at Tom Bennett’s book Teacher Proof and Daisy Christodoulou’s book Seven Myths about Education.

*The opportunity costs being that we have fewer resources (time, money, effort) to devote to improving curriculum and instruction in ways that would increase student achievement. And further, that the need to use the Chromebooks and other technology purchased might become a more important driving force in instructional material selection than student achievement.

Collective Bargaining

It’s been a doozy of a week for education, with Betsy DeVos confirmed as Secretary of Education on Tuesday and Governor Branstad signing SF 166, setting SSA at 1.11% (with only $40 million or $73 per student of new money), on Wednesday, and now moving on to bills to change collective bargaining for public employees in Iowa (Chapter 20).

Based on my Twitter feed, the collective bargaining bills are the hot topic at legislative forums this weekend (see Twitter #saveiaworkers, #ialegis, #iaedfuture). This tweet, apparently relaying a comment made by Rep. Rogers at one of today’s forums, caught my attention.

Comments like this are hard for the audience to verify if the alleged supporters aren’t speaking publicly, but, for what it is worth, we can check lobbyist registration information on the bills.

Chapter 20 bills are HSB84, now numbered as HF291, and SF213.

The Iowa Association of School Boards is registered as undecided on HSB84, HF291, and SF213 (click these links to see all lobbyist registrations on each bill). Despite being registered on 74 other bills, School Administrators of Iowa has not registered a position on any of these three bills. The Urban Education Network of Iowa and the Rural School Advocates of Iowa are also not registered on any of the Chapter 20 bills as of today.

Added: Sweeping changes predicted for public schools if collective bargaining bill passes (Press-Citizen)

Dissent Doesn’t Ruin Everything

Earlier this week, the ICCSD school board approved moving ahead with putting an approximately $190 million bond in front of voters, likely in September. (See coverage at the Press-Citizen and The Gazette.)

Concerns have been expressed about a lack of a unanimous board vote, suggesting that the bond has already been undermined by the two dissenting board directors. It hasn’t.

This bond is going to succeed or fail based on the ability of its proponents to persuade at least 60% of the voters to pass the bond.

It is nice to think that Directors Hemingway and Liebig could have erased community concerns–and guaranteed passage of the bond–simply by changing their votes. But it doesn’t work that way.* Giving voice to dissenting opinions and concerns doesn’t create dissension and concerns within the community, but it is essential for ensuring vigorous public debate in matters of interest to the public.

The school board vote earlier this week wasn’t the end of debate on the bond and the Facilities Master Plan. That debate will continue through election day and beyond, as the school board continues to make decisions about altering and carrying out the FMP.

The fact that some people (continue to hold and) express opinions contrary to our own is super annoying. But expressions of dissent have also been an ongoing invitation for proponents of the FMP/bond to work for a defensible FMP process, a defensible FMP, a defensible bond proposal, and to make the case for why voters should support it all with a vote in favor of the bond. We’ll see how effectively it was all done on election night.

*It doesn’t work that way unless Directors Hemingway and Liebig are the only members of the community with concerns. In which case, don’t worry! They each only have one vote to cast in the bond election and can’t, alone, cause the bond to fail.

ICCSD Science Program Proposal

Science curriculum changes are back in front of the ICCSD School Board on Tuesday. They will be asked to approve the 2017-18 Program of Studies and specific course changes, which include changes to the secondary science curriculum and the science course acceleration proposal.

The Board will be under pressure to adopt these changes, as any delay for community feedback and changes will reportedly delay student registration for the 2017-18 school year. I hope that the Board will resist that pressure, at the very least, with regard to the acceleration proposal.

The acceleration proposal would permit students to take the new Earth and Space Science (ESS) course as an 8th grader only if they scored a 95th percentile or higher on the 7th grade Iowa Assessment in Science.

The Iowa Assessments are not placement exams and the administration has provided no evidence that this particular cut score would predict success in the new ESS course or that students with lower scores would not be successful. In other words, without further evidence, this requirement looks like a fairly arbitrary one, set to exclude a large number of 8th grade students.

I was interested to see how the numbers of 8th grade students who would be eligible to enroll in the ESS course under this proposal would compare to the number of students who have historically skipped Foundations III. The District reports that 164 students in the current senior class skipped Foundations III; no numbers are reported for other classes.

Unfortunately, I was unable to find the numbers I wanted. So I pieced together these numbers from reports from the DE (2015-16 enrollment by district, grade, race, and gender), the ICCSD 2015-16 Enrollment, Demographics, and Class Size Report, and the ICCSD 2015-16 Annual Progress Report.

Because I couldn’t find demographics by grade level, I multiplied the total number of 2015-16 7th graders [975] by the best percentages I could find (demographics by junior high school building, except for male/female percentages, for which I had to use the percentages for the District as a whole). I also rounded the numbers up or down to avoid fractional students. Consequently, these numbers are best estimates, not actual numbers. The number crunching is further complicated by the fact that the District doesn’t use consistent reporting categories for subgroups between the enrollment report and the annual progress report.

Keep in mind that the Annual Progress Report Above Proficient designation relates to a 90th percentile score or higher related to the 2000 national sample in order for proficiency scores to remain comparable over time. Current percentile rankings are based on a comparison to the 2011 national sample and a grade 7 science score that would have earned a 90th percentile ranking compared to the 2000 sample only earns an 87th percentile ranking compared to the 2011 sample. Which, I think, means that students reported as Above Proficient could have scores from 87th percentile to 99th percentile, and we can’t tell how many would meet the 95th percentile or higher standard being proposed. I do think we can safely say that these numbers likely overstate the number of students who would be eligible to take ESS in 8th grade.


In any case, I hope you didn’t miss that the administration is proposing a rule that would essentially exclude Black or African American students from taking ESS in 8th grade. As a matter of equity, I hope the Board will press the administration for actual numbers on how the proposed eligibility rules affect the participation of students in various subgroups in accelerated science course work and for actual evidence that the proposed rule isn’t essentially arbitrary and needlessly restrictive.

I attended a high school that allowed students to choose honors or non-honors versions of core courses and it seemed to work well. If not completely open, perhaps a rule based on actual performance in 7th grade science might be more inclusive.

Also, the proposed rule about dropping the course if  grades fall below a B- seems to need clarification. At any time? So one low grade could force a student out without an opportunity to raise their grade by the end of the trimester? It seems more reasonable to me that, if this rule is needed, it apply only for grades at the end of the first or second trimester.

With regard to the AP Science Courses Review information provided, I would urge the administration and the Board to consider that packing a schedule with AP courses isn’t the only reason students may want to accelerate in science. The option to accelerate in science is also important to serve the needs of students who are simply ready for more challenge than the one-size-fits-all science courses offered in junior high. In that vein, I would also urge the Board to press the administration to design honors-level courses in ESS and Biology to better serve students who want or need more challenging science coursework.

As an incidental matter, it isn’t at all clear whether students choosing the ESS/Biology/Physical Science course sequence would meet the minimum course requirements for admission to Iowa’s state universities.

Finally, I would urge the Board to ask the administration to share with the community more details about instructional methods and materials the administration proposes to use in implementing the new science standards. If you’re wondering why I keep bringing this up, check out this NGSS-inspired lesson shared on the Iowa Core website. Read it and take a guess about how much these students actually learned about surface tension. Note that the teacher isn’t even certain what, if anything, his students learned.

The State Board of Education adopts standards but has no authority to require our District to use any particular instructional method or materials. Engagement, collaboration, and busyness can happen without any actual learning.  It is important for our students that the District get this right.

Community Comment 11/8

Community comments I hope to deliver at tonight’s school board meeting:

I am here to speak about the science curriculum review recommendations that news coverage indicates you will be asked to approve at the next regular board meeting.

Tonight, I urge the board not to take action to adopt science curriculum recommendations at the next board meeting.

Here’s why: the science curriculum review proposals are not a straightforward textbook adoption that would be easy for us all to understand. Instead, due to the adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards, the proposals involve significant changes to the district science curriculum. Unfortunately, not enough information has been provided to the community for us to assess how well the proposals will meet the full range of science programming needs of our secondary students.

Fortunately, the Next Generation Science Standards do not have to be implemented until the 2018-19 school year, so there doesn’t seem to be any reason the board–and the community–can’t hear a detailed presentation from the administration at the next board meeting about the proposal to implement the Next Generation Science Standards in the Iowa City Schools, with the board delaying action until the community has an opportunity to provide feedback about the proposal.

The state sets the standards, but we have options about how we, as a district, organize those standards into courses. And choices, also, to make about instructional methods and materials to be used in these courses.

Members of the community have questions about which options are really on the table with this proposal and whether the proposed options are really the best ones for the kids of this district. Questions about proposed course sequences and course syllabi. About whether there will be separate honors course offerings and how decisions will be made about which students get access to accelerated course work. And questions about textbooks and other instructional materials. Very little information, if any, has been provided to the community to answer these questions.

So, please, hear the administration’s presentation, then take at least a few weeks to allow the community to weigh in on the plan before authorizing the administration to move forward with it.

Thank you.


More Questions Than Answers

Just a few quick words about the science curriculum review report presentation at tonight’s board meeting.

Diane Schumacher, Director of Curriculum, Instruction and Testing, said tonight that course changes should alleviate concerns of parents about the science curriculum and that there is a science course flowchart that will be presented at an upcoming meeting.

She also said that the Next Generation Science Standards require earth and space science course work (true–see the high school earth and space science standards by Disciplinary Core Idea here, here, and here). Schumacher also stated that administrators believe it will take a full year to teach all 19 earth and space science performance expectations. So, the idea would be to rework the current Foundations of Science III course into an earth and space science course.

Contrary to the report recommendation that all 9th graders be required to take the course, without exception, Schumacher suggested that 8th graders might be permitted to take the course, subject to the usual gate keeping used for placement in accelerated math courses (test scores, teacher recommendations).

Here’s where things are a bit confusing. I took this as a suggestion to shift the doubled up science course problem from 9th grade to 8th grade. Here’s why: the Next Generation Science Standards have middle school standards grouped by grade band (6-8) but when the State Board of Education adopted the standards as the Iowa Science Standards, they adopted them as grade level specific standards* as presented in the Science Standards Review Team Report. So, if 8th grade students have to cover both the 25 8th grade performance expectations and a full year of 9th grade earth and space science performance expectations, how do they manage without taking two science courses in 8th grade? (With the fall back option of taking two science courses in 9th grade instead. Pick your poison.)

Others I spoke to after the meeting heard this differently–that 8th graders opting for the earth and space science course would just take a single science course.

Stay tuned. Hopefully things will be clearer with flowcharts in hand.

*Find the NGSS performance standards for all grade levels, by DCI here.