| As part of this year's assessment of the superintendent's performance, the board minority was instructed by Board President Seawell to prepare "a minority report." While preparing such a report regrettably accentuates the split on the Denver Public Schools Board of Education, it is necessary to create a separate assessment of the Superintendent because the board's majority will not make use of long-standing metrics established by both the Denver Plan and school board policy when assessing the Superintendent.
Based on our assessment, the Superintendent receives the following evaluation of his performance for the past year:
Fulfillment of District Objectives: The superintendent receives two evaluations of "does not meet" his performance objectives and two "partially meets" his objectives for this area. Following the model set forth by the board majority, in that "partially meets" will be treated as "does not meet," the Superintendent has not met four of his performance objectives.
Fiscal Management of the District: The superintendent receives one evaluation of "does not meet" his performance objectives and one "partially meets" his objectives for this area.
District Planning and Management: The superintendent receives an evaluations of "does not meet" his performance objectives for this area.
Of greatest concern is the evaluation of the superintendent's ability to plan and manage the district. While we considered many possible outcomes for the initiatives created by the superintendent, and some of these outcomes are potentially positive, the superintendent and his staff seem to disregard board policy on an all-too-frequent basis. It is our feeling the number of policies violated suggests a repeated pattern of willful and intentional violations of these policies. However, this superintendent has never been evaluated based on compliance with board policy, so the members of the board's minority believe the superintendent should be provided with guidance and an understanding that, should he choose to continue to violate policy, the members of the board's minority will seek his termination.
Board policy is especially important to the model under which the Denver Board of Education expects to operate policy and governance. This model has long been established as a preferred way for school boards to help create organizations that are successful. However, it is not possible to follow this model when the CEO repeatedly ignores policy, especially those surrounding community involvement, financial transparency, and governance that should be provided by the school board.
The Superintendent is to receive a maximum possible bonus of $50,000 according to his employment contract, to be divided between objective and subjective measures. Using the majority members' procedure to count "partially met" objectives as "not met," we have concluded that only four District goals have been met for this year. We recommend the payment of $5,264 to the Superintendent for objective goals achieved.
With respect to subjective goals, we are troubled by what appears to be a repeated, willful and intentional disregard of Board policies; therefore, we cannot recommend any portion of the performance-based compensation for which the Superintendent is eligible at this time, for this year.
We eagerly anticipate the Board's impending work on the retooling of the Denver Plan and look forward to the opportunity to work in close concert with our colleagues on the board majority.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeanne Kaplan, Director, DPS District 3 (Central Denver)
Arturo Jiménez, Director, DPS District 5 (Downtown, Northwest and West Denver)
Andrea Mérida, Director, DPS District 2 (West and Southwest Denver)
And here is our supporting documentation:
DPS BOARD OF EDUCATION - MINORITY REPORT
Superintendent's Evaluation, 12/20/12
FULFILLING DISTRICT OBJECTIVES
Increasing Academic Performance (Status)
Observed Performance: The metric to be evaluated to measure the Superintendent's performance related to increasing the academic performance (status) comes from the Denver Plan. This metric says, "(o)n average, the proficiency rate for grade level cohorts will increase 3.5% in reading, writing, and math over each.
The table below summarizes District-wide data for the period between academic year 2009-2010 through academic year 2011-2012, the last testing data available for the Colorado Student Assessment.
Assessment: Based on these results, the superintendent receives a "partially meets" evaluation for improving academic achievement district wide.
Evaluation: Increases in academic performance should be additive based on the goal established in the Denver Plan. This being the case, academic performance (status) should have increased by 24.5 percentage points since academic year 2005/2006. Applying this model to the time period between academic year 2009/2010 to 2011/2012, the district's status would be 57% at or above proficient for reading, 42% in writing, and 46% in math. Under the Superintendent's leadership, the district has not come close to these levels of performance.
Development Actions: Therefore, the Superintendent shall develop a detailed plan for improving student performance (status) for the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 academic years. This plan will address the Denver Plan objective for increasing the performance status of all students by 3.5% and shall include the following to improve district academic performance:
- Methods to be used
- Changes in the instructional model
- Metrics for assessing progress toward meeting the Denver Plan goal
- Identification of risk that may affect the District's ability to improve and risk management methodologies to manage these risks
The Superintendent shall provide updates on District progress related to this action item at each monthly meeting of the school board. The board shall assess the Superintendent's progress and provide him with feedback on a quarterly basis.
Expected Outcomes of the 2013 Performance Period: The District's academic performance shall increase by 3.5 percentage points per year as measured by both the 2013 and 2014 TCAP testing events.
Increasing Academic Performance (growth)
Observed Performance: The metric to be evaluated measuring the Superintendent's performance related to decreasing the number of students scoring unsatisfactory on the state's standardized test comes from the Denver Plan. This metric says, On average, the percentage of students scoring unsatisfactory will decrease by 3.5% in reading, writing, and math each year.
The table below summarizes District-wide data, by grade, for the percent change in students scoring unsatisfactory on the CSAP for the period between academic year 2009-2010 and academic year 2011-2012, the last testing data available for the Colorado Student Assessment Test. The expected change is 3.5 percentage points.
Assessment: Based on these results, the superintendent receives a "partially meets" evaluation for decreasing district-wide the percent of students receiving an unsatisfactory ranking on the state's standardized test.
Evaluation: As above, decreases in the students receiving unsatisfactory ratings should be additive based on the goal established in the Denver Plan. This being the case, this numbers should have decreased by 24.5 percentage points since academic year 2005/2006. Nowhere has this gain been seen for this metric. However, in Reading, the data show that a solid track record of decreasing the number of unsatisfactory evaluations is being achieved overall. The Superintendent should take heart in this achievement as it appears to be reflective the hard work performed under his leadership related to reading in all schools across the district. However, this same gains are not being seen in Math and Writing.
Development Actions: The Superintendent shall perform an analysis showing the reasons for the improvements being achieved in Reading. The Superintendent will then evaluate the ability of the District to implement these same strategies across the Writing and Math subject areas. Based on this evaluation, the Superintendent will develop a detailed plan for implementing these strategies for the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 academic years. This plan shall include the following to decrease the number of unsatisfactory ratings received by district students:
- Methods to be used
- Changes in the instructional model
- Metrics for assessing progress toward meeting the Denver Plan goal
- Identification of risk that may affect the District's ability to improve and risk management methodologies to manage these risks
The Superintendent shall provide updates to the school board on District progress related to this action item quarterly. These updates shall be provided as part of the board monthly meetings. The board shall assess the Superintendent's progress and provide him with feedback at the six month point in this assessment cycle.
Expected Outcomes of the 2013 Performance Period: The District's academic performance shall increase by 3.5 percentage points per year as measured by both the 2013 and 2014 TCAP testing events.
Decreasing the Achievement Gap
Observed Performance: The metric to be evaluated to measure the Superintendent's performance related to increasing the academic performance (growth) comes from the Denver Plan. This metric says, The performance gap between Asian / Caucasian students and African-American / Hispanic students scoring Proficient & above on CSAP will decrease by 3.5% annually, closing the achievement gap.
The table below summarizes District-wide data for the period between academic year 2009/10 through academic year 2011-2012, the last testing data available for the TCAP.
Assessment: Based on these results, the superintendent receives a "does not meet" evaluation for decreasing the achievement gap between Asian / White students and Black / Latino students.
Evaluation: Decreases in the achievement gap should be additive based on the goal established in the Denver Plan. This being the case, the achievement gap should have increased by 24.5 percentage points since academic year 2005/2006. If, in fact, the goal had been met every year since the 2005/2006 school year, the achievement gap would not be no greater than 4.5 points in math and would have effectively been wiped away in reading.
However, despite some gains related to academic performance (status), the achievement gap is increasing between Asian/White students and Black/Hispanic students. Further, this is the second year in a row that the Superintended has not met this performance objective.
Development Actions: The Superintendent shall develop a detailed plan for decreasing the achievement gap for the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 academic years. This plan will address the Denver Plan objective for decreasing the achievement gap that exists between Asian / White students and Black / Latino by 3.5 percentage points and shall include the following to improve district performance:
- Methods to be used
- Changes in the instructional model
- Metrics for assessing progress toward meeting the Denver Plan goal
- Identification of risk that may affect the District's ability to improve and risk management methodologies to manage these risks
The Superintendent shall provide updates on District progress related to this action item at each monthly meeting of the school board. The board shall assess the Superintendent's progress and provide him with feedback on a quarterly basis.
Expected Outcomes of the 2013 Performance Period: The District's academic achievement gap will decrease by 3.5 percentage points per year as measured by both the 2013 and 2014 TCAP testing events.
________________________________________
Increasing Graduation Rates
Observed Performance: The metric to be evaluated to measure the Superintendent's performance related to increasing the graduation rate comes from the Denver Plan. This metric says, The graduation rate for DPS students will increase by 5% per year to reach 82% in 2012 (base of 52% for 06-07).
The table below summarizes District-wide graduation data for the period between academic year 2009 through academic year 2011, the last testing data available for graduation rates in DPS.
Assessment: Based on these results, the superintendent receives a "does not meet" evaluation for increasing the graduation of students in DPS.
Evaluation: Graduation is a milestone in the academic lives of students and, as such, we consider this outcome and the preparedness of district students post graduation to be primary indicators of district success. As with other metrics, increases in graduation rate should be additive, as is demonstrated by the overarching goal of an 82% graduation rate by 2012. While these data are not available for this evaluation, it is highly unlikely that our students will have attained this graduation rate when, after 4 years, the rate has increased by 4%, or 1 percentage point less than one year's expected increase.
Further, it is noted that the gap between Asian / White graduation rates and the rates of Black and Latino students has remained static.
Development Actions: The Superintendent shall develop a detailed plan for increasing the district's graduation rate based on the metric established in the Denver Plan. This plan will address the Denver Plan objective for decreasing the achievement gap that exists between Asian / White students and Black / Latino by 3.5 percentage points and shall include the following to improve district performance:
Changes in the instructional model
Metrics for assessing progress toward meeting the Denver Plan goal
Identification of risk that may affect the District's ability to improve and risk management methodologies to manage these risks
The Superintendent shall provide updates on District progress related to this action item at each monthly meeting of the school board. The board shall assess the Superintendent's progress and provide him with feedback on a quarterly basis.
Expected Outcomes of the 2013 Performance Period: The District's graduation rate will increase by 5 percentage points per year as measured for the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 TCAP academic years.
_________________________________________
FISCAL MANAGEMENT OF THE DISTRICT
The members of the board's minority recognize that the District's financial health is reliant on many facets, including budgeting, expenditures, debt management, investment, and finance. Each of these areas is addressed below.
District Budgeting and Expenditure Reporting
Observed Performance: The Denver Plan contains a central theme regarding budgeting: increasing the transparency associated with budgeting and ensuring that schools create budgets based on a PPOR model. Unfortunately, the Denver Plan does not offer specific objectives or measurable outcomes to support the evaluation of whether or not the District is making progress for achieving these goals.
However, Board Policy DB - Annual Budget, states:
The budget shall be presented in a summary format which is understandable by any lay person reviewing the district's budget. The budget format shall itemize expenditures of the district by fund and by student. It shall describe the expenditure, show amount budgeted and amount estimated to be expended for the current fiscal year and the amount budgeted for the ensuing fiscal year.
The budget also shall disclose planned compliance with Article X, Section 20, of the Colorado constitution.
The Board assigns to the superintendent overall responsibility for budget preparation, budget presentation and budget administration, but he shall have the authority to delegate portions of this responsibility.
Insofar as possible, the budget adopted by the Board shall be sufficient to implement all programs and policies that have had Board approval.
Neither the documents included on the district's Budget Office webpage nor the presentation to the board's finance and audit committee "itemize expenditures of the district by fund and by student" nor do they "describe the expenditure, show amount budgeted and amount estimated to be expended for the current fiscal year and the amount budgeted for the ensuing fiscal year."
It should be noted that the district's Budget Office webpage does include a spreadsheet of line item budgetary items, but this spreadsheet is hardly usable by "any lay person." This spreadsheet provides 19,000 rows of raw data but no meaningful reporting or analysis of the data to support the public's understanding of the district's budget.
Further, Board Policy DBD -- Determination of Budget Priorities states:
Each school-level accountability committee (Collaborative School Committee) shall make recommendations to the principal relative to priorities for expenditures of district funds by the school. A copy of these recommendations shall be sent to the district accountability committee and to the Board. The principal shall consider these recommendations when formulating budget requests to be presented to the Board of Education.
The district accountability committee shall make recommendations to the Board relative to priorities for expenditures of district funds. The Board shall consider these priorities when it adopts the annual budget.
This policy was not followed as part of the budgetary process conducted this evaluation period, nor has it been followed during the past budgetary cycles.
Finally, Board Policy DFA -- Investment and Cash Management Policy states that the board's finance and audit committee will receive quarterly reports summarizing cash receipts and disbursements for the following funds:
- General Fund (to include the Emergency Reserve)
- Capital Reserve Fund (to include the Emergency Reserve)
- Self-Insurance Internal Service Fund
- Other Internal Service Funds
- Government Designated Purpose Grants Fund (excluding federal funds which are required to be held in non-interest bearing accounts)
- Special Revenue Funds (as appropriate)
- Pupil Activity Fund
- Food Services Fund
- Permanent Government Fund
- Private Purpose (Trust) fund - (excluding the Retiree Health Benefit Trust)
- Building Fund
- Bond Redemption Fund
- Any new fund created by the District, unless specifically exempted
Such reports have not been received as part of meetings of the board's finance and audit committee meetings.
Assessment: Based on compliance with Board Policy DB, DBD, DBF, the Superintendent receives a "does not meet" evaluation for related to the budgetary process, budgetary transparency, and expenses reporting to both the board and the public.
Evaluation: It is unclear why the board policies cited above are not being followed. In particular, the board's investment and cash management policy was revised in 2011. The other policies, while older, maintain the spirit of Colorado statute, that the public and the public's elected officials shall have transparency into the financial operations of the school district.
Development Action: The Superintendent shall develop a detailed plan for complying with Board Policies DB, DBD, and DBF. This plan shall be presented to the board at the January 2013 board meeting and will include proposed modifications to the budgetary process including a process diagram, as well as templates for reporting the budget to the public as per board policy and for reporting expenditures associated with the funds identified in Policy DBF.
The plan shall also include a quality control procedure for the information to be reported. This procedure shall ensure that information contained in all reports are accurate at the time each report is prepared.
Expected Outcomes of the 2013 Performance Period: The Superintendent shall begin providing updates related to fund expenditures at the February meeting of the board's finance and audit committee. The budgetary development and approval process for the 2013/2014 fiscal year shall comply with applicable board policy.
Debt Management
Observed Performance: The Denver Plan contains three central themes regarding debt and debt management:
- Secured and re-affirmed a AA credit rating, allowing Denver taxpayers to pay lower interest costs on district debt.
- DPS will continue to maintain contingency reserves and appropriate fund balances to ensure DPS, and therefore Denver taxpayers, achieve the most competitive interest rates on its debt obligations.
- Effectively manage bond debt to limit taxpayer obligations. We will maintain a good credit rating, use federal stimulus programs, and appropriately issue debt to limit interest costs.
Under item 1 above, the board's minority members commend the Superintendent has done an excellent job maintaining the district's AA credit ratings and the credit ratings for its debt.
Under item 2, it is unclear to what extent the Superintendent is maintaining these reserves and funds as the board's finance and audit committee has not received the quarterly report described above. Without this information, the superintendent cannot be evaluated related to this objective.
Under item 3, the superintendent's performance is questionable. For example, during this last evaluation period, DPS was authorized by voters to issue $466 million in bond debt. However, the manner in which the debt was issued did not follow board policy and discussion related to the issuing mechanism happened in violation of the Colorado's sunshine laws.
Board Policy DFB - Debt Policy states:
The form of debt shall be determined by the Chief Financial Officer of the District, presented to the Finance and Audit Committee for its consideration, and recommended to the Board for action. Consideration shall be given to a number of factors as noted in prior sections of this Policy.
When issuing the $466 million in debt approved by voters as part of the November 2012 election, the Chief Financial Officer never presented the board's finance and audit committee with the proposed form of the debt (in this case, premium bonds), nor was a recommendation forthcoming for action at any board of education meeting. Therefore, neither body of elected officials could consider the debt issue based on the other factors contained in the Debt Policy.
On December 3rd, four board members met under the auspices of executive session. However, the meeting was not noticed prior to its occurrence, the board did not enter executive session legally, and none of the reasons fir entering into executive session stated at the start of the meeting was discussed during the meeting. In short, the meeting was used to brief board members on the concepts of premium bonds but not to receive legal counsel or discuss strategies associated with the bond's sales. The bonds then when to market and were sold on December 4, 2012 at 4:05 EST without any formal discussion or vote by the board.
Assessment: The Superintendent receives a "partially meets" evaluation related to the debt management.
Evaluation: Members of the board's minority feel, while it is critical to maintain the district's credit ratings, it is equally critical to meet the requirements of policy before issuing more debt. Since 2007, when this superintendent began fulfilling his role, the Districts debt has gone from $750 million to now over $2 billion in long-term liabilities. This escalation in liability suggests the critical nature of ensuring the public's money is not only being used wisely but that the district's elected officials are made aware of and are comfortable with the methods being used by the superintendent to issue debt. In this case, insufficient time and a lack of public discussion occurred before the superintendent and his team took $466 million to market.
Development Action: The Superintendent shall develop a detailed plan for taking debt to market and include:
- Identification of all decision points whereat a determination must be made related to debt mechanisms, interest rates, and short and long-term risks
- The means for obtaining board input at each of these points
- Identification of the board deliverables to be prepared to document the board's decisions
This plan shall be presented to the board at the February 2013 board meeting.
Expected Outcomes of the 2013 Performance Period: The Superintendent shall follow board policy when issuing or refinancing debt.
District Investment and Finance
These areas are not evaluated because of a lack of information.
______________________________________
DISTRICT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
Compliance with Board Policy
Observed Performance: Board Policy CH - Policy Implementation states:
The Superintendent has the responsibility for administering policies adopted by the Board of Education.
During this past revaluation period, the superintendent has had repeated violations to board policy, including:
- Breach of Policy FB: Historical Designation of Facilities. It is clear that the seven-year review of potential Tier 1 properties, as called out in Policy FB, has not been followed. Further, the Superintendent has authorized an application for a Certificate of Non-Historic Status for the Emily Griffith Opportunity School without a public process as delineated in the policy.
- Breach of Policy FN: Shared Campuses. This policy states that, when considering to co-locate a school in another school's building, the Superintendent and his team will evaluate the following as part of the team's recommendation to the board:
- Regional demographic data and trends
- Enrollment and performance data and trends in potentially affected schools
- Community views
- Preferences of the new and existing schools
- Compatibility between new and existing schools
- Availability of school choices in each region
- Geographic feeder patterns
The board has been provided no work products associated with co-location recommendations and, thus, turmoil has surrounded co-locations at Merrill Middle School and at North High School.
By not complying with Board Policy FN, the Superintendent has not sufficiently demonstrated careful analysis of regional demographic data and trends, community views, preferences of the new and existing schools, compatibility between new and existing schools, or geographic feeder patterns.
- Breach of Policy BGA: Policy Development System. This policy states,
The Board or the Superintendent may prepare recommendations for the formulation, amendment or repeal of policy. Whenever policy formulation, amendment or repeal is contemplated, notice of such proposed policy making, amendment or repeal shall be given to the public and the public shall be informed of when there will be a public hearing on such proposed policy. Interested parties may submit written or oral comments and or participate in the Board's public comment session as time permits on contemplated policy adoption, revision or repeal.
However, the Denver Charter Compact policy was not noticed, nor was the public offered a public hearing on the proposed policy, the Superintendent has deprived the Board of Education of its power "to formulate policies for the administration of the Denver Public Schools" and has therefore willfully and intentionally violated Policy BGA.
- Policy JB -- Equal Education Opportunities states,
All students within this school district regardless of race, color, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, disability, or sexual orientation or gender identity shall be equally entitled to the benefits of good education
However, the superintendent has not worked with the board in a public manner to address the mandates of the ELA (English language acquisition) consent decree regarding appropriate staffing levels, the rights of students to receive either Spanish-first or sheltered English instruction, and the rights of Spanish-speaking DPS students to receive a "good education."
Assessment: Based on repeated violation of the board's policies, the Superintendent receives a "does not meet" evaluation for implementation of District Planning and Management.
Evaluation: The members of the board's minority find these repeated violations of board policy very troubling. Most of DPS' board policies are anchored in Colorado statute. Further, policies off the framework for conducting the public's business associated with the school district. Even when a board vote appears to be a fait accompli, the Superintendent must still function within the law and district policies.
Development Action: The superintendant shall not violate board policy during the next evaluation period, else, as per his employment contract, the board's minority will actively seek his removal per Item 8, Clause 5 of his contract, which reads,
The Board may at any time... terminate the Superintendent's Contract for cause, which includes, but is not limited to... (5) repeated intentional and willful violation by the Superintendent of the Board's policies.
Expected Outcomes of the 2013 Performance Period: The Superintendent will have no violations of the Board of Education Policies.
ASSIGNMENT OF BONUS
The Superintendent is to receive a maximum bonus of $50,000 according to his employment contract, to be divided between objective and subjective measures. Using the majority members' procedure to count "partially met" objectives as "not met," we have concluded that only four District goals have been met for this year. We recommend the payment of $5,264 to the Superintendent for objective goals achieved.
With respect to subjective goals, we are troubled by what appears to be a repeated, willful and intentional disregard of Board policies; therefore, we cannot recommend any portion of the performance-based compensation for which the Superintendent is eligible at this time, for this year.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeanne Kaplan
Director, DPS District 3 (Central Denver)
Arturo Jiménez
Director, DPS District 5 (Downtown, Northwest and West Denver)
Andrea Mérida
Director, DPS District 2 (West and Southwest Denver) |
