District 742 Community
Schools
Jerry Von Korff, Board
Chair
|
Please Reply
to
1015 W. St. Germain St., Ste. 300, P.O. Box 1497
St. Cloud, Minnesota 56302-1497
Email: jvonkorff@rinkenoonan.com
Telephone 320-251-6700, Fax 320-656-3500
Direct Dial: 320-656-3508
|
To: Board of Education
From: Gerald Von Korff
Re: Quarterly Chair Report
Date: March 27, 2014
I
promised to provide a quarterly chair report.
The goal of the report is to provide the Board with information on my
activities and the areas where I have been providing focus. The Chair is a servant of the board, and I
see this report as an opportunity to stimulate feedback on where you would like
the chair to focus in future quarters.
Continuous Progress Atmosphere. You may have heard me at Board meetings
repeating the concept of continuous progress in various contexts. The continuous progress philosophy – for
organizations, is worth repeating because it is fundamental to the direction
that the School Board and District administration has been taking. In every
organization, we can find inefficiencies or areas for improvement—in our
curriculum, in our teaching practices, in our governance. If we find problems
this year, and get rid of them, we will find some next year, and the next year
after that. An organization that is not finding inefficiencies or areas to
improve and solving them is not being honest with itself.
When staff comes before us with test scores that need improvement,
for example, the public expects us to respond appropriately. Doing that requires a delicate balance. If we merely celebrate the excellent work
that they are doing, the public and staff may get the impression that we are
willing to celebrate unacceptable results.
On the other hand, if we blame or humiliate professionals who are doing
their very best with the resources and support that we authorize and provide,
then we are destroying morale. So, I
think, we need constantly to strike a balance in our public deliberations. The public and staff ought to see us
focusing on how we can improve, but they ought to see us celebrating success
and appreciating the efforts of our dedicated educators. I’ve heard people say we cannot do both
during a televised meeting, because we would be exposing vulnerabilities in
public. But I think that it is
important to our credibility that we strike the correct balance throughout our deliberations.
Workshop Meetings. For several months now, we’ve been trying to
focus on a single major topic at our workshop meetings. It is appropriate to take stock whether that
is working for us and whether any refinements ought to be considered. In today’s meeting, we’re trying one such
refinement. But if members have any
other suggestions, please advance them to a member of the Board
Development Committee. Dennis and I have
been talking about trying to invite more persons from the community who have an
interest in the topic before us. The
persons who have come with expertise to those meetings made significant
contributions to the quality of the dialog, I believe.
Agenda Planning.
The purpose of the agenda planning process is to determine what is going
to come to the board at the next meeting, of course. But it has several other important
purposes. One is for the board
representatives to anticipate questions that other board members might have, so
that the rest of you get the information that you need. Another is to review the back
up materials that will be presented to the board. As you know, for many years I’ve argued
that our district needs to do a better job of preparing those materials in
advance of the agenda planning meeting, so that we can make sure that what the
board has will provide adequate background.
In many larger organizations, the goal is to have all background
materials available when the agenda is approved by the committee. At
times, I feel that we could do a better job of getting those materials to the
agenda planning committee for that purpose.
It would help Dennis and I do our job better, if we had board member
feedback on that.
Referendum
Reform: After several years of
effort, the public education community succeeded in obtaining for all school
districts in the State of Minnesota discretionary levy authority equivalent to
about $724 per pupil. We’ll hear more
about that from Peter Hammerlink, legislative chair,
who played a leading role this year and last in marshaling our efforts. Our superintendent testified twice
effectively. This achieves one of our
major board objectives for this year.
One
consequence of this achievement is that we will not be required to organize and
prepare for a referendum renewal in November.
Instead, both Dennis and I believe that we need to develop an
accountability protocol that will establish what commitments the board of
education wishes to connect to the levy that it passes. When we sought referendum authority from
the voters, we made certain pledges regarding instructional ratio, activities,
and other important objectives. I think
in order to maintain fidelity with the concept that the board of education can
more effectively represent the public in connecting operating levies to key objectives, we should be developing an accountability
approach. I would like to refer the work
on this to the Finance Committee.
During
our discussions about the levy, should it have been necessary, there has been a
dialog about the possibility of assuring that the instructional ratio
commitment should also have a class size impact in those schools that are
experiencing class size challenges because of a lack of special funding. I suggest that this discussion should
continue in the context of the board levy adoption process.
Tech
Replacement: A second consequence of passage of referendum
reform is that, if we choose to do so, we can plan a new high school referendum
for the Spring of 2014. We need a calendar of events to get us to
that point so that the board, staff and the public understands the decision
points, when and where stakeholders will have an opportunity to address the key
decisions.
Clark Field: I’ve heard several times from Clark Field
proponents. Until now, I’ve been
telling them our timing is up in the air, because we don’t know if we’re
running a referendum in November. The
folks working on Clark Field funding have decided that they cannot raise the
funding match if we can’t promise them our half of the field renovation
funding, and we’ve said that we cannot produce funding for the field without
voter approval.
It is
clear that if there is a new Tech, there is going to be a football facility for
that new school. As we move forward,
the district needs to develop a plan for deciding where that field is going to
be, and whether private fund raising would have any part in that decision. We need to develop a decision schedule for this
issue and integrate it in some way with the work we are doing on a new Tech.
Strategic
Planning: Tentatively, we have set the following
schedule for concluding the board’s involvement in strategic planning:
(a)
April Workshop meeting. Presentation of draft strategic plan. Representatives of the planning teams will
join us and be present to participate in discussion. (b)
During April and May, staff and community
opportunities to discuss and provide input on the plan. (c)
Also during this period, we will be looking at
the budget, and the budget will likely be impacted by the strategic plan and
the superintendent’s recommendations for the first steps for
implementation. (d)
Final adoption would take place at the second
meeting in May.
In order
to gain true public and staff support, I believe that it is essential that when
we invite staff, parents, and others in the community to look at the proposed
strategic plan, that we give them a meaningful opportunity to comment. We only create ownership if these
presentations involve listening. A
dedicated team of staff and citizens have really worked hard, and we have every
reason to expect that their work product will be wonderful. But, if we want genuine buy in, there needs
to be some productive listening as well.
We can’t say that every last word is sacred. If we hear that stakeholders need a
clarification, or emphasis on something they believe is missing, we have to provide
a mechanism to hear that, I believe.
This
morning, I visited a meeting of the core planning team. I heard them discuss whether it will be
possible to engage the community and convince the community that this process
is leading to significant positive change.
I believe that the engagement process that takes place before adoption
is a critical step in providing those assurances. If we simply put the final product in front
of the board and rubber stamp the work that has been done, people will not see
the process as having been transparent and engaging. I am hearing from everyone involved that the
work product is excellent. I have no
reason to believe that the Board will want to pick the document apart. But it is absolutely critical, I believe,
that we afford staff and community to engage with the plan and provide input at
a stage where that input can be taken into account in a meaningful way.
Partners
for Student Success: Dennis and I have been meeting monthly with
Pat Welter and Bruce Watkins to maintain a dialog with their leadership.
Finance
Committee Recommendation on Construction Projects. The item on tonight’s agenda regarding
construction projects is designed to authorize preliminary planning work. The Superintendent is saying, we need to do some work on planning these projects, before
they are ready for presentation to the Board for final approval. We aren’t being asked to approve them for
construction. But, the administration
is saying, look, if you aren’t willing to consider approving them, then we
don’t want to expend time, effort and money on discussing and doing preliminary
planning.
The Clearview K-8 proposal has the greatest impact on the way
we deliver programming and the configuration of the district. Consequently, I would suggest that it is
going to require the most careful diligence.
I attended the Clearview PTA this month and
delivered the message, along with Principal Rutar, that the community should be
afforded an opportunity to participate in the consideration of this
proposal. It seemed to me that the
parents at this meeting wanted that opportunity and would welcome the ability
to provide input and participate in planning.
The proposal has an impact on South as well, and so of course, other
parts of the district deserve an opportunity to be heard. In addressing this proposal, it would seem
that before it is advanced for final approval, the board will want to know that
the administration has looked at issues such as:
(a)
The likely number of students who would attend
the added grade levels at Clearview;(b)
Whether there are a significant number of
prospective students at those grade levels would prefer to attend South;(c)
How immersion programming would be delivered at Clearview, and what complications, if any, are involved in
keeping immersion there for two additional grades;(d)
What we have learned from the Kennedy K-8
experiment, and whether those lessons are transferable to Clearview,
or whether there are any differences;(e)
The budgetary impacts on providing K-8 at Clearview;(f)
Whether the program at Clearview
would provide a robust, high quality, attractive program for the students
likely to attend.
In the
near future, we should have a calendar of decision points, so that folks
interested in this process will know when and how they can provide input.
Budget:
During the next few months, the budgetary
process will be running in parallel with the strategic planning approval
process. One expects that, since the
strategic plan envisions change next year, the budgetary planning will reflect
those changes. Although the strategic
plan will not be finally adopted until the end of May, we should recognize that
the superintendent will be embedding within the budget the priorities that flow
from the draft strategic plan.
Communications: I asked members Whipple and Dahlgren to
meet on an ad hoc basis to help focus on the communications issues that they
have both advocated we work on. In the
chair’s view, communications involves better efforts to provide a clear message,
a message that is more responsive to the concerns that people have, and to do a
better job of listening. Members
Whipple and Dahlgren have proposed a communication review that would be
conducted by an outside consultant in an approach that would be conducted by an
outside independent review. The process will involve board finance,
development and linkages committee and of course the Superintendent.
Linkage
Committee: Member Mohs advised that he would like to
resign from the linkage committee. He’s
carried a huge workload on this committee for many years, and he deserves our
thanks for many years of service above and beyond the call.
I met
with the committee to discuss directions a week ago. After consulting with board committee members
and Bruce Mohs and the Superintendent, I’ve decided to appoint Dennis Whipple
to Chair the committee and to put myself on the committee to fill the vacant
slot. During the
committee board report, and in the liaison policy discussion, we can discuss
where the committee is going further.
We’re hoping that in April and May that board members will visit PTA,
site councils, or other appropriate functions at their respective schools. We’d like to supply each member with
communication points that describe the major issues that we are facing on the
board. Our goal is to prepare a basic
set of these documents by the end of April.
These issue summaries would be coordinated with the administration. Hopefully, at each school during the next
months, each member would give a five minute board report with the consent of
the principal to make sure that we’re linking to the people we serve in each
building.
An
example of what an issue document might look like is attached. We’ve discussed creation of summary documents
for the board on topics such as the following:
·
Major items currently before the Board of
Education or coming to the board of education in the near future with a few
sentences about those items and approximate dates that we will be confronting
those issues. Where citizens and staff
can participate in consideration. Link
for further information online. ·
Building plans.
Status of these building plans.
Schedule for consideration and approval. Where citizens can participate in
consideration process. Link for further
information online. ·
New High school and Clark Field
information. Schedule for consideration
and approval. Where can citizens and
staff participate in consideration process?
Link for further information online.·
Budget process.
Major budget issues. Schedule for
consideration and approval. Where can
citizens participate in consideration process?
Link for further information online. ·
Strategic plan process. What can board members say about the process. Schedule for
consideration and approval. Link for
further information online. ·
PTA and other meeting schedule. (Site councils, other board possible
appearances). Upcoming board linkage
events.
We’re
also discussing whether there are some formats we can devise to engage in more
effective listening.
College
and Post Secondary Prep Every chair has an
area of special interest. My highest
interest this year happens to coincide with an area that I believe is going to
receive special emphasis in our strategic plan—increasing our graduation rate
and providing better, more consistent, support for every secondary student, to
see that he or she gets the counseling, the mentoring, the teacher support, to
make the transition into post secondary
education. I hope that we will discuss
this at the graduation workshop and through our strategic planning develop an
operational strategy that assures that young people are not only learning what
they need to do to prepare for post secondary
education and developing necessary study habits and skills, but are regularly
monitored and supported to assure that they do the test prep that they need to
do, complete necessary forms for admission and financial aid, take the right
tests at the right time.
