Board Watch 8.23.22
That was WILD. Whether you’ve watched every school board meeting, or this was your first, you likely feel like you woke up Wednesday from a fever dream. Tuesday night’s meeting definitely lived up to its emergency designation; but unlike the pandemic, or the district’s recent bout of structural fires - this RPS crisis was totally manufactured.
Let’s take a few moments and process this trauma together, shall we?
The Outcry
The Proposal
The Process
Those Personnel “Changes”
The Consequence
The Outcry
Last week the state released 2021-2022 SOL data. They were the division’s first true gauge of how the pandemic years impacted academic performance. (In 2020-21, SOLs were opt-in for most grades.) Everyone expected a decline in student performance, but that expectation did little to soften the blow. It was a moment to sigh, reflect, analyze, and collectively roll up our sleeves as a community and recommit to the hard work of our students' academic recovery.
Three board members, however, felt a more urgent response was necessary. They called for a special (“emergency”) meeting, and told press the discussion would include unpacking the data and major personnel changes.
We reported the evolving drama in Friday and Monday’s newsletter - but even we were caught off guard by the wave of anxiety that hit us when we walked in the room Tuesday night. The community stress was palpable. (If you're just tuning in - just know that it is impossible to separate the events below from the feelings generated by the meetings’ media build-up.)
If days of mounting tension didn’t get your heart pumping, watching the brief 30 minute public comment would get you there. Individuals delivered their concerns at a rapid clip, struggling to cram as much as they could in 60 second allotments.
The comments fell into two buckets. The first pertained to Board performance:
The community is dissatisfied and disappointed with irresponsible, unacceptable governance that threatens to throw our district into chaos.
Unqualified leadership has mismanaged the district, and yielded Massive Failures.
The public blame game has been unproductive.
Repeated calls for the Board’s resignation were met with audience applause. The Chair chided this response.
The second bucket was curriculum.
Calls for a survey to assess how the curriculum is being used. Where is it working? Where is it not?
Curriculum should be a resource, not a mandate. Don’t punish teachers who adapt it to fit their students.
Curriculum flexibility and teacher autonomy is crucial to job satisfaction and the division’s retention efforts.
“We are getting it wrong” - Curriculum is being improperly applied and instructed.
The district needs to expand/emphasize their technical education offerings.
Vice Chair Gibson requests more time for teachers to deliver public comment. The Chair declined.
The Proposal
Public comment was followed by the evening’s only agenda item: “discuss academics.” This vague title, per the Chair’s comments to the media, was broadly understood as an opportunity to unpack the SOL data.
The superintendent delivered a high-level, 11-page overview of the data. He compiled this presentation at the chair’s request 1.5 days earlier - a rush-order deliverable the week before school starts. He promised to follow up with a more detailed analysis - and any recommended solutions - in October. (That is typical for processing this volume of raw data.)
Eager to bring her own recommendation forward, Vice Chair Gibson made a motion to adopt the following change:
"Related to the curriculum, Richmond Public Schools will implement new internally developed curriculums by the end of the 2022-23 school year, to meet the unique needs of Richmond Public Schools students. This process will begin by establishing a working group by subject that will provide initial recommendations and budgets by October 31, 2022. As such, the existing off-the-shelf curriculum will be phased out by the end of the school year. Effective immediately, teachers will not be disciplined by veering from curriculum as deemed appropriate. Related to teacher retention, the Superintendent will provide the following items to the board and public by October 31, 2022. 1. The VDOE-approved Climate and Culture Survey Report findings from teachers the past three years, and 2, provide plenary data from the past three years, and provide projections of the most recent data for teacher retention in the district."
As is the superintendent’s role on the governing team, Kamras weighed in on this proposal with his recommendations “based upon the outcomes of studies and upon the judgment of the staff.” (POLICY 1-5.4) Apologies for the length - I did not cut down his quote. This exchange is a current topic of debate, and I believe you should decide for yourself what is reasonable.
“I have grave concerns to put forth about this motion, both on procedural grounds and substantive grounds. As a matter of process, this is - once again - a violation of our unanimously agreed to norms, where we have all agreed not to introduce and vote on motions the night of. Especially items that are not even on the agenda. That is deeply concerning for something as consequential as the very focus of what we do - what it is our students are learning.
Because it was not on the agenda, the public - certainly our teachers and principals and others - did not have the opportunity to even speak to the merits of the motion, to weigh in in any way shape or form other than innuendo that they ascertained from media reports, facebook, and other sources. As a matter of substance it is a well documented, well researched fact, that putting rigorous material in front of children is one of the best levers towards closing gaps in achievement by race, academic background, and ability status. This has been studied time and time again by institutions of higher learning, and repeatedly they have come to the conclusion that when you put rigorous curriculum in front of students it ensures that no student is left to be at the mercy of any substandard curricular materials.
I believe that the curricula we have are helping us make the growth that we have seen. If I didn’t - I would be the very first person to promote the removal of this curricula.
I am committed to teachers having flexibility to adapt as they see fit, in their classrooms, and teachers to do the same. But to jettison these two highly regarded, highly respected curricula, and to make that announcement 3 days before school starts, and to put our principals and teachers into - in essence a state of panic - not knowing how to proceed this school year.. Even with the timing that has been outlined, and to then create the financial and time burden of creating from scratch brand new curricula, I actually believe it would do enormous harm to our students. If those who have put forward this motion feel confident that the vast majority of educators, teachers, principals, and so on, are supportive of it, then I would ask to give them an opportunity to speak to it - either tonight, have folks be able to come up - but more appropriately to table this motion until our next school board meeting so that all of our educators can know what is at stake and weigh in. If the board decides at that point to move away from the curricula, so be it, and we will move forward. But I think it would be a gross disservice to our educators, to our kids, to take this action suddenly, without any notice, this evening.”
It is important to emphasize: the superintendent’s day-to-day job is to run the school district. But as a member of the “governance team,” it is his duty to warn the school board of the impacts - favorable or not - of their proposals.
Unmoved, the Vice Chair argued that the current curriculum was a problem from the start: It was “just too much change” in conjunction with a new calendar and bell schedule, and the addition of chromebooks. The superintendent replied:
“What you’ve introduced tonight is one of the most tectonic changes our school system could possibly face. Now this may be what you desire to achieve, then so be it. But, to argue that this is a response to too much change - quite frankly just doesn’t pass basic common sense.”
The Vice Chair decried this comment: “To shame me for making a motion— it’s simply not appropriate.” Adding: “there was not a single teacher tonight that supported keeping this curriculum, that spoke.”
She is right: there were no teachers defending the curriculum during public comment on Tuesday. Likely because the only promised agenda topic was a discussion to unpack the SOL data. Had curriculum been an announced agenda item, we’d likely see more varied viewpoints in public comment, and a “robust discussion” of who the curriculum is working for, who it is not, and how district policy can better apply it. The evening's public comment was a great beginning to this conversation - but there are more voices to be heard.
Young seconded the motion. Representative Rizzi and the Chairwoman joined their colleagues in voting “yes.” Without a 5th “yes,” the motion failed.
There is no indication of why White objected to the motion.
The remaining board members’ objections centered on procedural concerns we go into next.
Nicole Jones, 9th District, summed up their position nicely: “The people of the City of Richmond did not elect group chats, private emails, PACs, or anything else. They elected 9 board members. So when recommendations are going down, they should go down to everybody so we can all be on the same page.”
The Process
We’re going to illustrate this dense “legalese” subject matter with a seasonally-appropriate analogy:
The School Board Meeting on Tuesday night was like a football game. There is a team on the field, competing to advance a policy agenda.
Gibson throws a pass (makes a motion), and Young catches it (seconds the motion) and carries the ball down the field (through Board debate). Board members may disagree, and join the defense. But, so long as a majority (5+) of members support the motion, it will successfully reach the endzone. Touch Down! Motion Passes.
Except, like in Football, this whole “play” must stay on the field (within the legal limits of board activity). And Gibson’s Board colleagues worry that this “ball” has crossed the line (violated a policy) and gone out of bounds. Here are 2 ways this motion could be out of bounds:
Policy 502.2 illustrates the appropriate path for adopting new curriculum (in legalese, this is called “New Course Proposals”). Written curriculum is “submitted in writing to the Chief Academic Officer, who reviews the curriculum with a Curriculum Task Force, and then submitted to the School Board with a recommendation to approve or decline each proposed course. The policy, as written, is the local (RPS) interpretation of Virginia State Law. Currently, the district has no CAO to lead this process, or ensure a new curriculum is faithful to the additional commitments made in RPS’s MOU (Pg 3, #5).
Lastly, Policy 1-6.1 specifically addresses Special (or “Emergency”) meetings. It is written to prevent exactly an ambush-scenario like Tuesdays:
“No business shall be transacted at any special meeting which does not come within the purpose set forth in the call for the meeting unless all members of the School Board are present and unanimously agree to the consideration of the additional item or items.”
In real football - a referee would have thrown a flag down, and reviewed the play (motion). But on School Board, there is no referee. Board members must referee themselves.
It is the job of every board member to know and operate within the bounds of Board policy.
It is also the job of every board member to “stop the play” once they recognize Board conduct is potentially “out of bounds.”
A Tuesday do-over might look like this:
The Vice Chair reads her motion.
Any of her colleagues say “Point of Order” - and ask their lawyer (Ms. Jonnell Lilly) whether the motion crossed the line.
Board Counsel reviews the motion, existing policy, and the district’s additional compliance requirements per the MOU.
Counsel advises either… “It’s fine,” “It’s too close to call,” or the rarely seen “Oh yeah, that’s totally illegal!”
All 9 board members assess the risk of proceeding with the motion - modify, delay, or table the motion - and proceed with their meeting.
Ultimately, it’s up to the Board Chair to rule a motion Out of Order; but IF she allows a vote, and the board passes a questionably-compliant motion, they are vulnerable to both legal and reputational risk. Either they get sued, or they erode public trust to the point of resignation, or recall. (There's currently an appetite for both.) But there is a third “nuclear” option, as well:
In the face of a Board that consistently or egregious acts “out of bounds” with their significant tax funding, and/or their constitutional responsibility to offer citizens a “high quality education” - the State can intervene. Either by withholding funding (unlikely, since the State, too, is bound by that constitutional mandate.) OR, they could take over RPS. The Board of Education, appointed by our current Republican Governor, could oust some (or all) school leadership, and supplant their own. This is also unlikely, but the odds are growing as these rogue “plays” become a bad habit, and the consequences are increasingly severe. Even Ghazala Hashmi and Michael Paul Williams see this storm cloud brewing: “If you want Gov. Glenn Youngkin controlling RPS, then go ahead. Make his day.”
Youngkin has demonstrated a heavy-fisted approach to 1) the appointment of the VCCS Chancellor, 2) higher ed's autonomy to make fiscal decisions and to protect academic freedom, 3) censoring books and teachers, and much more. @ThadWilliamson raises serious pts. for @RPS_Schools https://t.co/dfhPtGqZyD
— Ghazala Hashmi (@SenatorHashmi) August 23, 2022
In the end, this motion failed, and the district is spared from these repercussions. But we hope to see School Board members use their referee powers - and the legal resource of their Board Counsel - to stop these negligent governing behaviors cold-turkey.
Those Personnel “Changes”
This portion of the meeting took place outside of the public eye, and we are not privileged to witnessing or FOIA-ing the details. We did confirm with an audience member, though, that the Superintendent brought his lawyer into the meeting.
All we know now is that nothing appears to have happened, and nobody appears to be happy about it.
If you’re the superintendent, you’re probably craving some stability. The Board who “took you to the dance” when they renewed your contract 18 months ago, consistently refuses to dance with you. And while the communal support of “Keep Kamras” campaigns must feel nice, the need for them must not. The Boards’ growing mistrust prevents his ability to make big, necessary changes; he hardly has enough Board trust to . And the Board routinely dragging him into closed session to discuss ending his employment contract must feel like a tired game of Russian Roulette.
And from the board’s perspective: Jonathan Young, who promised transformational change out of this meeting, called the evening embarrassing, and a failure of the leadership team. The Chairwoman is also quoted in this article publicly admonishing the administrator’s “common sense” comments to the Vice Chair. Loyalties - it would seem - remain locked.
The Consequence
The most obvious consequence here is like “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” Except it’s “The Board Who Cried Emergency.” There’s only so many emergency meetings that a Board can have with exactly zero outcomes before it loses the trust of the community (and voters) entirely. There are certainly a lot of eyes on the happenings of the RPS School Board - and if the evening’s public comment was any indication of their approval ratings, they were low going into this meeting and even lower going out. Few seem to be buying into the Chair’s rosey, 10/10 review of herself, or her claim that the public’s outrage over her Board’s repeated policy non-compliance is a “false narrative.”
We also suspect that the Board and administration will engage in a critical and hopefully constructive review of the current curricula. Some, or all, may need replacement. There even seems like enough consensus to immediately protect teacher freedom to …”veer from curriculum as deemed appropriate”: "I am committed to teachers having flexibility to adapt as they see fit” -JK. (Side note, there’s an excellent write-up that includes further insight into this part of the motion, and on-the-ground experiences it’s meant to address. Definitely give it a read!) We’re rooting for a collaborative (and policy compliant) process, and a district that - up and down the chain of command - tips towards a healthier balance of faith in employees, trust in their craft and instincts, AND a reasonable degree of accountability that emphasizes reform over retaliation or replacement.
It can be frustrating waiting on the slow pace of responsible governance - slower when your political favorites exhibit weak consensus-building skills. But the rules of this democracy exist to protect voter’s political power, the sound investment of taxpayer dollars, and (most importantly to us here at KFRPS) the academic opportunity available to the city’s students.
Thanks for tuning in! Have a great weekend everyone. And a GREAT start to the new school year.
