RPS RECAP: April 17, 2023
Happy weekend, Board Watchers! The Board met again on Monday night to discuss the following:
Budget Cuts
Headstart
Procurement Policy
Academic Presentation
Closed & Consequences
Budget Cuts (aKA, “The Administration has work to do.”)
Let’s start with a quick recap of the RPS budget season:
January: RPS drafted their FY2024 budget based on the funding they expected from the City and State.
The City immediately met with the Board to tell them their numbers were way off. The City is in the habit of increasing RPS funding by $10-15M a year, not $29M, and their tax revenues don’t support that substantial jump in funding. [Watch]
February: The Board rolled the dice. They submitted a +$29M request (approx $230M total) to the City anyway.
March: Mayor Stoney unveiled his draft budget, which allocates +$21M for RPS. (This 10.6% increase matches the city’s 10.6% revenue growth in 2023.) [Watch]
Meanwhile, the additional State funding RPS was counting on is wrapped up in a game of political chicken. The Republican Governor won’t approve a budget that doesn’t expand tax cuts for the wealthy, and the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee (a democrat) is holding out for a budget that includes additional public school funding (and maintains the tax revenue to sustain it).
All-in, RPS now anticipates a $10M reduction in revenues, and the Board has to shrink their budget accordingly.
Last week, Rep Gibson “implored” the Superintendent to draft a list of potential budget cuts for the Board (and the community) to consider. [Watch] Kamras shared this list on Monday night, then sat for 92 minutes while Board members took turns shooting the messenger, describing any potential cuts as “unfair” and “unacceptable.”
Jones is “disappointed” that the superintendent has recommended budget cuts. She says it sends a terrible message to RPS staff, families and students. [Watch]
Vice-Chair Burke chastises someone* for making budgetary “promises.” Now she’s going to have to go to her schools and break the bad news. (*After 5+ years of building school board budgets, I hope she’s scolding herself for giving community members false hope well before the city or state had announced their final budgets. Especially considering the immediate and explicit warnings council gave assuring the Board this budget ask was unrealistic.)
Page is “disappointed” and “disturbed” to see proposed cuts to CIP (facilities) and athletics because these areas have already been “grossly underfunded” for 20+ years. [Watch]
Harris-Muhammed will not support cutting the (vacant) auditor position. “Now that’s crazy.” [Watch]
She also interprets the superintendent’s proposed use of one-time covid relief funds (American Rescue Plan/ ARP) to close funding gaps as a way to undermine the Board’s commitment to maintaining the Richmond Virtual Academy. [Watch] (For the record, Rep Doerr proposed cutting RVA last week.)
White falsely claims the admin hasn’t shared the details of the budget or a list of current contracts, insisting that there is “a lot more money going out the door” (aka waste). Jones agrees, pointing to $200K in surplus Iready licenses.
Basically: Everything in their budget is reasonable and necessary. These cuts are mean (personal). The Superintendent is probably wasting money somewhere, and it’s up to him “to find some funding from somewhere.” [Watch]
“I’m just not going to support what has been presented this evening at all - if the General Assembly finds common ground or not. I’m not going to do it. The administration has work to do.” Dr. Harris-Muhammed [Watch]
There is some productive talk: Can we work with Dominion to lower our energy costs? Can we look to public-private partnerships to cover some of our expenses?
…Some wishful thinking: Dominion should pay their fair share in taxes. Maybe the City will give us more money if we meet with them to explain how important these funds are. (Unfortunately, the City held its last budget hearing a couple of hours before Jones voiced that recommendation.)
….And a few unhelpful tangents, like when Harris-Muhammed ranted about the City’s proposed asset mapping collaboration, which she talks about as though it’s a ruse to replace school social workers with city ones, and/or increase the district’s reliance on City services. [Watch] (This sidebar was an honest misunderstanding. She’d missed critical context for a colleague’s comment when she was out in the hall visiting with some sorority sisters.)
In the end, the Board does not agree to any cuts.
They do not identify any new funding sources.
By law, the Board is required to develop and approve a budget that fits within their “financial reality.”
So far, the best they can produce is a wishlist.
Head Start
For months now, the Board’s Head Start discussions have been shrouded in mystery. All we knew was:
Someone in RPS screwed up.
One or more Head Start employees were fired (resigned?);
There’s at least one associated lawsuit; and
RPS’ new Chief Academic Officer of Elementary Education has spent the last year cleaning up the mess
Since the matter was so entangled with ongoing litigation and private personnel information, the Board couldn’t let the public know any of the details, much less why it all mattered.
But then, during Monday night’s Head Start update, Dr HM dropped just enough additional hints that I *think* I understand what’s going on.
I’d like to tell you what Head Start is, RPS’s conplicated history with this federal program, their current legal trouble, and how what impact it could have in Richmond’s children, but… let’s be honest. It’s the weekend, and neither of us want to be here that long. Instead, I had Chat GPT do it in about 300 words:
The Head Start program is a federally-funded early childhood education program that serves low-income children and their families. Richmond Public Schools (RPS) has had the program since the 1960s and has helped thousands of children. However, allegations emerged that RPS had misused Head Start funds, including using the funds for employee salaries instead of providing services to children. Audits blamed a "lack of internal controls", which means that RPS did not have adequate policies and procedures in place to ensure appropriate use of grant funds. RPS could face significant consequences, including paying back misused funds and losing eligibility for future Head Start funding, which could reduce services for children and have long-term effects on their academic and social development.
While these issues are concerning, it's important to note that mismanagement of grant funding is not unique to RPS or Richmond, and there have been cases of mismanagement reported in other school districts and municipalities across the country.
There are several factors that contribute to the mismanagement of grant funding in high poverty school districts. These districts are often under-resourced and understaffed, making it challenging to manage grant funds effectively. The application process can also be complex and time-consuming, leading to errors and oversights. Furthermore, staff may lack the necessary training and support to manage grant funds properly, resulting in their misuse. To address these issues, there is a need for more oversight, streamlined application processes, and better training and support for staff.
Anyway - Back to Monday: We learn that the Policy Committee (led by Dr. HM) has spent months working together with the Chief Academic Officer of Elementary Education, Dr. Leslie Wiggins, and the regional Office of Head Start to “address the areas of deep concern and neglect.” They’ve made significant progress, but they’re still running late assembling and finalizing this year’s grant application.
Dr. HM asks her Board colleagues to approve the still-incomplete Head Start application so that the district can meet the deadline, which falls just hours before the Board’s next meeting. In a rare show of trust, the Board offers their unanimous support.
Procurement Policy
Jonathan Young wants the Board to have greater control over the district's contracts. Currently, the Board approves all contracts over $250K. Young would like to lower that threshold to $100K.
The Board initially agreed to send this proposed policy amendment to the policy committee, since it’s their job to consult with the administration and get a thorough understanding of the impact the policy change would have on the division.
Come Monday, the Board has changed their minds. The Policy Committee has been meeting infrequently, and “time is of the essence” - so Harris-Muhammed and her committee-colleagues (Gibson and Jones) agreed to okay Young’s request without further investigation.
Things get a little weird when Mariah White notices that Board policy gives the superintendent the authority to sign contracts. (Signing basically “locks in” the contract terms. “Signed” contracts are then sent up the chain of command for approval, which is a separate step.) She’d like the “manager of purchasing” to have signing authority instead, because they’re the one establishing a contracts’ terms and assessing all the risks and benefits.
The Board greets this recommendation with a collective shrug and agree to update the policy language.
The discussion breaks down when Gibson asks to essentially eliminate the Superintendent’s authority to approve Sole Source Contracts. She is concerned that these contracts are not competitive (which is true because - by definition - this provision is only eligible when a vendor has no competitors.)
“A sole source contract situation arises where a particular supplier or person is identified as the only qualified source available to the School Board.”
The Board does not agree to this change. They don’t feel comfortable making a change this big without the Policy Committee vetting it first.
Gibson gets frustrated that her colleagues are “cherrypicking amendments” to Young's motion. [Watch] This is an odd framing that suggests the Board makes (or should make) decisions based on what is polite or considerate of a colleague’s feelings, as opposed to rooting policy in what is best for Richmond students.
Besides, she says, the whole reason the Board is having this discussion is because the Superintendent used the Sole-Source provision to purchase Amira. (In this and earlier conversations, there’s a sense that this was a misuse of the superintendent’s authority because he was purchasing “curricula” behind the Board’s back. (The Board’s using a very loose definition of “curricula” - by the way. More on that in the next section.)
Gibson asks: Young’s amendment wouldn’t prevent a similar purchase going forward, and wasn’t that the whole point?
No. That was not the point. Not Young’s point, anyway. If he gave a hoot about Amira or “transparency” - his motion would have addressed either of those things.
Instead, Young recognized his colleague’s eagerness to punish the superintendent for her grievance-du-jour, saw an opportunity to manipulate the moment to “reign in” division spending, and took full advantage of it/her.
Burke and Rizzi point out that Young’s amendment doesn’t actually address the Board’s stated “transparency” goal. We’ve always had a policy that the Board sees all contracts. That hasn’t been happening. I don’t think we need to change the policy - I think we just need to start enforcing it. [Watch]
Hearing this, Young moves quickly to push his amendment across the finish line: I’ll second Gibson’s motion some other time, but hey let’s pass my policy amendment now before the rest of you catch on.
Gibson’s amendment fails.
Young’s motion passes.
The Board can now expect to consider an additional 5-10 contracts per Board meeting.
And I was getting used to the shorter Board meetings, too.
Academic Presentation
Last week the Academic team gave a presentation on the Virginia Growth Assessment, a mid-year test that helps see where students are in their mastery of the state’s learning standards for their grade.
The Board received this information with a blend of suspicion and disdain - which is how they’ve consistently responded to Academic presentations for months now.
To my surprise, though, Monday night the Board was… nice.
They had a jerky start: Young “salutes” the Manager of Career and Technical Education for her department overseeing the certification of 93% of students enrolled in the CTE program. He invited his colleagues to share their gratitude, too. (Crickets)
But when Dr. Wiggins and team stepped forward, much of the Board found their voice. Notably:
Jones “really appreciates” the Literacy Deep-dive presentation. She “commends” the Academic Team’s hard work, understands the challenge of presenting on complex subject matter. She “loves” their vision.
Page shares this sentiment, and throws in some love for the “young people” that are working so hard to show this academic growth across the district
Doerr “takes a moment to celebrate” the team’s “amazing” achievements improving student achievement.
White chimes in with a cheerful thanks to RPS staff for their “quick turnaround followup” to her questions from last week.
Of course, there’s still some hold-outs…
Gibson pounces on another chance to “catch” the administration using district funds to acquire more curricula materials behind her back. [Watch]
There is no contract. These materials are donated by the Schusterman Foundation.
What foundation? Spell that, please. And tell me who funds this foundation and what their intentions are.
Kamras sees where this is going. He assures her this is a family foundation, it’s providing RPS with free support, and participating school districts have control over those resources.
Rizzi and Harris-Muhammed save their praise for the recently-fired Director of School Improvement. Dr HM is “darn near in tears.” She blurs the line of disclosing personnel information in a public meeting when she berates the Academic Team for undervaluing this employee, saying she knew all along that Dr. Wiggins & Co. intentionally cut this employee out of the curricular-support work that has driven the district’s academic growth. [Watch]
You can watch the whole presentation and Q&A, here.
As a quick note on the actual “academics” part of this conversation: The Board continues to share this idea that the district is wasting a ton of money on commercial curricula that isn’t aligned with the Virginia SOLs. Quick refresher:
There are no curricula that are aligned with the Virginia SOLs. Professionally developed curricula follow a “one size fits most” model - and school districts expect to adapt curricula to their individual state’s standards.
RPS doesn’t use expensive commercial curricula. They use free, open-source curricula modified by a team of “academic architects.” Here’s Chat GPT again to explain the difference:
Commercial curricula are educational resources developed and sold by for-profit companies. Critics of commercial curricula argue that they can be inflexible, expensive, and may perpetuate bias or reinforce stereotypes.
Open source curricula are freely available resources that can be modified and shared by educators. Critics of open source curricula argue that they may lack quality control and standardization, and may require technical expertise to modify and adapt materials.
This is an important distinction that both:
Validates teacher concerns about the need to significantly adapt our open-source curricula. Maybe RPS’ modifications are good, but they’re developed too slowly; or maybe the modifications are inadequate.
Proves that the teachers, community members, and Board members who complain about RPS’ use of expensive “Big Box Curricula” aren’t complaining about the actual free, open-sourced curricula we use. They are either confused, or they are protesting the very idea of curricula because they’d rather have a school environment where administrators “get out of the way” and “let teachers teach.” (I suspect it’s a bit of both.) Neither our “teacher suitability” rating or our MOU (basically a district-wide performance improvement plan from the VDOE) support this leap. In fact, the Office of School Quality’s academic review suggests teachers and principals need more oversight and professional development, not less.
School administrators should provide explicit expectations to teachers, attend planning sessions, provide professional development, develop a system to monitor and provide feedback, and attend professional learning opportunities with teachers.
There’s a third curricula option. Districts can write their own. But - in a district struggling to meet our most basic needs, and grappling with $10M worth of cuts - this “hire a team of experts to develop a custom curriculum from scratch” option does not feel like it fits our current “financial reality,” either. (I’m sure the “lack of quality control” is an issue in this scenario, too.) Nevertheless, our Board is stuck in their misunderstanding. They consistently flirt with the idea of overhauling our curricula. This gets harder and harder to justify as the Academic Team reports consistent, impressive gains in student achievement.
After all, why throw away years of the Academic Team’s work (and our taxpayer dollars) adapting our current, open-source, VDOE-approved curricula when Board members are already saying congratulations, clearly something you’re doing is working?
I’ll be sure to let you know how the Board’s curricula discussion evolves.
Closed & Consequences
Just before Monday’s meeting, local media reported on a controversial ruling of the Board’s Disciplinary Committee:
A Thomas Jefferson High School student threatened to shoot his teacher in the face. His fascination with guns and school shootings had worried school staff for months, but this threat of bodily harm crossed a line. Richmond Police charged the student, and a hearing officer recommended his expulsion.
Reps White, Gibson, and Jones considered this evidence, the fear of school staff, and the safety of his classmates, and upheld the expulsion.
Just kidding. They overturned the expulsion and sent the student back to the same school.
This isn’t exactly a surprise - we’ve known for a while now that the RPS School Board overturns expulsions 92% of the time - but this was the first time we’ve had a glimpse at the kinds of cases they’re hearing. This story bares a striking resemblance to another Virginia shooting that took place just over 100 days ago in Newport News:
A first grade teacher was shot by her 6 year old student after telling administrators she was concerned about the child’s “violent mood,” history of random violence, and his possession of a firearm on the day of the shooting. School administrators ignored these concerns, and failed to intervene.
Like our Disciplinary Committee, Newport News administrators were known for their permissiveness, often offering disruptive students candy instead of consequences.
Now they’re being sued for $40M.
The reality is: There are too many guns in America. There are also too few resources in place to support the mental health of the students threatening to use them.
Neither of these are problems that our leaders can solve by dismissing or downplaying them; and doing so puts the safety of the entire school community at risk.
Richmond teachers, students, and parents have shared these concerns with the Board. Sometime via public comment. Sometimes via their satisfaction surveys.
Harris-Muhammed told the media the Board would be discussing the matter again on Monday night. I’d hoped for introspection. Maybe they would emerge with a plan to reassign division dollars to support their commitment to restorative justice.
Instead, Rep White was defiant. She is “fine with it” and told the media “we can only make decisions based on what [information] is given to us.” In other words, the usual strategy of deny and deflect accountability… this time with a pajama-clad twist.
It’s unclear if the student will eventually return to school, or what “provision” is in place to ensure school safety when he does.
That’s all for this month! I’ll be back with a new recap the first week of May. Enjoy your weekend!