JCPS board reflects on self-evaluation

Dissenting opinion

The 2014 Jefferson City Schools Board of Education listens to Jefferson City High School science teacher David Ganey in front of a packed house during a board meeting. Dozens of concerned educators, parents and community members attended the board meeting to express their concerns about disruptions and disciplinary issues in the public schools' classrooms. A self-evaluation taken by the current school board members revealed several areas where they had dissenting opinions.
The 2014 Jefferson City Schools Board of Education listens to Jefferson City High School science teacher David Ganey in front of a packed house during a board meeting. Dozens of concerned educators, parents and community members attended the board meeting to express their concerns about disruptions and disciplinary issues in the public schools' classrooms. A self-evaluation taken by the current school board members revealed several areas where they had dissenting opinions.

A self-evaluation taken by the Jefferson City Public Schools board members revealed several areas where they had dissenting opinions, but many members said they'd be more concerned if all their answers were aligned.

The 80-question survey created by the Missouri School Boards Association asked board members about their knowledge of the district's achievement and their connection to the community and how the board delegates authority, monitors district performance and takes responsibility for itself.

During a special session Aug. 22, facilitators from MSBA walked the board through the results and suggested a goal: continuously monitor progress toward district goals, focus areas and its priorities for this year. To fulfill that goal, the facilitators said they should focus their agenda and special work sessions on items that clearly associate with the district's strategic plan.

In terms of the survey, many of the responses were across the grid, which board members said is unsurprising considering how different all seven board members are, but it could also be contributed to the phrasing of the questions.

Member Lorelei Schwartz said some of the questions were unclear. Is it asking about the board as a whole, the individual members or the school district? President John Ruth agreed and said while it opens up areas for discussion on how the board can improve, the survey is also unclear at times about what it's truly asking.

Overall, dissenting opinions were viewed as a positive.

"What it does is lets us know we've got the opportunity to continue improving," said Vice President Steve Bruce. "I would be more concerned if the board evaluation came back and had all positive comments, and we all said we strongly agree that everything is going great. Our graduation rate is highly unacceptable to me. We have some obstacles to get around. If all the answers were positive, it would clearly show a disconnect, and we would have far more work to do."

The News Tribune interviewed six of the board members to get their perspective on the survey results. Board member Rich AuBuchon declined to comment, saying he would like the board to speak as one unified voice in every situation.

 

Communication with stakeholders

On the survey, board members had varying responses for how well the board communicates with the public.

Three of the seven members noted the board is reluctant to discuss its challenges and could be more transparent with the community, and two said the board views community engagement as a burden.

In interviews, several board members thought board communication has improved compared to previous years, and all agreed greater measures could be taken to have more two-way conversations with stakeholders.

Member Pam Murray said the open forum portion of board meetings should be more open than it is currently. Visitors are limited to speaking only on agenda items, but some agendas might never address the issue on which someone wants to speak. If people aren't afforded the opportunity to talk about what concerns them, then the board could miss an opportunity to do something about it, she said.

Member Michael Couty said he fought to have board meetings streamed online, something the board considered but ultimately opted against.

"I think we've got to be able to use as many vehicles as possible to communicate our issues," he said. "A big thing for me is looking at streaming the meetings as one way of communicating to the public the situations we're dealing with on a monthly basis."

He also advocated for expanding open session.

Ruth said there are always opportunities to improve, but he disagreed with streaming meetings and widening the open forum as the best avenues to achieve that. Many board members had concerns about "unintended consequences" of streaming the meetings. Someone would have to review the footage and potentially edit out any student or employee information leaked by a guest speaker. Several also felt few would watch the streamed meetings, making it hard to justify the start-up expenses.

Instead, Ruth suggested people ask to be put on the agenda so they can present to the board and have a two-way conversation with board members. Open forum limits the board to listening to the presenter, so it's not a good platform for opening a discussion, he said.

Member Ken Theroff and Schwartz both said the board could always improve communication but said they had difficulty answering the question because of its phrasing: Is the survey asking members if the board as a whole could better communicate? Is it asking about the members individually or as a school district? The results of the question could be misleading, they said, because the question isn't clear.

Being that all the members are elected officials, Theroff said, communicating with the public is part of the responsibility, and all seven members would likely agree with that.

"I think the board is transparent," he said. "I think there can be a perception that we aren't because we have to handle things in closed session, so the implication is we're hiding something. We're really careful what we take up in closed session and the responsibility to keep those items confidential. Larry (Linthacum, superintendent) is an open book, and Larry is really our mouthpiece. He's our CEO, and he's representing us. And he's very good at it."

Schwartz agreed being open to the public is part of the school board's role.

"I think we all understand that we have an obligation to do that," she said. "I think it can be difficult, but I think we all understand that's part of our role to communicate to our community what we're doing."

Since 2014, when Bruce was elected to the board, he's seen more efforts to discuss district efforts with teachers and parents. The superintendent has been hosting meetings at every school to walk parents through the district's new behavior plan with a question-and-answer session at the end.

"Frankly, I was surprised to hear some board members view it as a burden," he said. "No one likes to hear negative feedback, but I think we all value stakeholder input in various different ways. While it's tough to hear what they think, that you're not getting it right, it's important to keep an open mind. I can't think of a time when a board member was not willing to hear out patron's concerns."

Having strong communication with the public is the key to their success, he said. Consistently reaching out to stakeholders is one of the board's foundational responsibilities.

Relationship with the superintendent

One category the board agreed almost unanimously on for several of the questions was its relationship with Linthacum. The board acts as a checks-and-balance system that hires the superintendent and has ultimate authority over some district operations, but the majority of the district's responsibility falls on the superintendent.

All board members agreed staff are directly accountable to Linthacum, the board does not try to micromanage district affairs, and if any of the members need information, they should request it from him or the board president, according to the survey results.

During the hiring process, Bruce said board members were frank with him about challenges the district has and clearly defined expectations and priorities.

He's been heralded by the board as being exactly what the district needed, and they frequently joke he has a bad poker face. But that it works in his favor. He's been upfront with the board and the community about the challenges the district has and his plans for the future.

Theroff described Linthacum as a "breath of fresh air."

The transition has been relatively smooth, Couty said. As outlined in the survey, it's important clear goals are established and the board has open lines of communication with the superintendent and vice-versa.

 

Areas for further training

The majority of board members said there isn't a lot of information presented about teacher professional development nor do board members receive enough local orientation or mentorship.

Five said in the survey they did not receive data on the effectiveness of professional development in improving instruction and student achievement, one person said they do receive enough data, and one person said they don't know.

Four said they do not think new members receive enough local orientation, two said there is enough orientation and one person didn't know.

Expanded information on professional development is something Murray said she'd like to see. Board members receive information on how professional development is funded, but it would be helpful to go more in-depth about new professional development mandated by the Legislature.

"From an oversight standpoint, I would like to see how much professional development is done for teachers in our district and breaking that down," she said. "How much of it is an unfunded mandate from the state? Not to say all mandates from the state are bad, but they add hours to professional development required."

Other members said professional development falls more under the district's central office staff than the board. Bruce said board members aren't content experts. Gretchen Guitard is the director of staff services, and much of her responsibilities are dedicated to curriculum and professional development.

"You have to strike a balance with what we need to know on the board level," he said.

Ruth attributed the responses to a misinterpretation of the question, and maybe board members aren't linking discussions about the district revamping its curriculum, which is considered professional development. It made him realize he and Linthacum could do a better job making clear connections between the information presented and how that's classified as teacher training.

In terms of board member training, all agreed the training mandated by the Legislature and facilitated by MSBA is comprehensive, but some said there could be more local training.

As a new board member, Schwartz said, it was helpful to her to go through the training shortly after she was elected to the board in April. She wishes she had thought to meet with someone to hear more about district issues earlier in the process. She's been very involved with the district through the parent-teacher organizations at her children's schools, so the inter-workings of the district was fairly clear. It would have been helpful to meet with an administrator to better understand some of the district's struggles, she said.

Bruce said when he was a candidate he went through a program that allowed the public to get a closer look at district operations. It was helpful to him, he said, and he wishes the district would offer it again.

"I think it would be great to sit down with candidates, and I would encourage future folks to sit down with the superintendent and hear where their interests lie. I think sometimes there can be a lot of confusion about what's good and what's not."

 

A surprising element of the survey outcome

The majority of board members expressed how surprised they were two board members said on the survey they don't feel their opinions are valued by the other board members.

But another question asked whether they value the opinions of their fellow members, and they unanimously agreed they did.

"I've got to say, some questions in that survey were looking for trouble," Murray said.

Another question asked if some board members seem to hold grudges. Four disagreed with that statement, two agreed and one said they didn't know.

"If they did (hold grudges), so what as long as we can fulfill our duties," she said. "I think we hear everyone out and respect each other's opinions."

Ruth said the question that speaks loudest is all members said they respect and value each other's opinions. The board didn't discuss the matter further, so he's not sure about the context behind the two who don't feel their voices are valued.

There are seven people on the board who have different opinions and sometimes members don't agree, but that doesn't mean they're not respected, Couty said.

"I think it shows we're looking at and having good deliberations, and many times we'll agree on the issue," he said. "There will be situations we don't agree, and I don't think that's bad."

Bruce agreed with Couty's sentiment.

"I think (the results) were surprising, and I imagine it was surprising to a number of folks because we have real candid conversations. There's no shortage of robust conversation among board members or discussions about strategy going forward. That's healthy, and we may get to some places differently than I would have. But I've always viewed that as healthy. If we have seven Steves or seven Pams or seven Johns, we're not going to help as much as we could have if we had people from different backgrounds."

In Theroff's experience, he's never experienced anyone being disrespectful or not listening to what other members had to say.

"I've never witnessed any behaviors that would leave me to believe (members don't feel respected)," he said.