Doing better by the diversity policy

The P-C reported that Superintendent Murley outlined a plan for a comprehensive strategy for resource allocation at last night's listening post. I have been told from attendees that this strategy would be in addition to redistricting efforts, and that he, at one point, said something to the effect that a balanced free-and-reduced lunch rate would be optimal academically.

I'm pleased by this development, and here are few ways that I think we do better.

First, I think we need to articulate our ultimate goal for how we'd like the school district to look. I think this goal should be tied explicitly to academic matters. I know that some will disagree with me on this matter, and I sympathize with some of these criticisms. For instance, I know some (I am one of these people) who think that the social consequences of lacking socioeconomic and racial diversity in a individual school can be just as problematic as any academic consequences, and they would support such diversity even if there were no negative academic consequences to lacking it. I'm in that camp myself, since I think the goal of education is not just vocational, but is also there to help form our students into good participants and citizens in our society.

Still, I think it is important to tie the goal explicitly to academic concerns. Doing so will be helpful for people like me who think education is more than just what we know (but also about what we believe, what we love, and how will live) and people who think it is just about knowledge acquisition. In other words, I think we will have a much stronger case for whatever changes we need to make if it is tied explicitly to academics.

Here is a goal I might suggest: the ICCSD should reduce the achievement gap between schools that have greater barriers to education (high proportions of low-income students, high proportions of ELL students, high proportions of high-need general education students, and so forth) in comparison to those that have fewer barriers by improving the academic performance of those schools that have greater barriers.

I was concerned that the resource allocation model wasn't clearly tied to an academic goal at least as it was discussed in the P-C article.

Second, we need to be clear about how we measure success of this goal. One of my fears is that we will simply measure academic achievement in terms of whatever standardized test scores we are using. I think that's a recipe for making it look like we are educating our children, when we may not be. So I would propose instead that we use many evaluations -- including both quantitative data such as surveys of relevant teachers and affected parents, number of learning objectives in which a students have shown progress and/or mastered over the course of the year (as evaluated by the teacher), and also standardized test scores AND qualitative data drawn from focus groups of teachers, staff, and parents, interviews, and so forth. The qualitative data will be important for asking the right sorts of questions in any surveys. Measure our achievement of our goals in this way will help us avoid the trap of assuming that because a student who came in barely speaking English and who didn't do well on the standardized test score in English didn't improve. It would avoid the trap of merely teaching to the test. In short, we need to think critically about how our measuring techniques might affect the methods we use to achieve success of that goal.

I mention these measures not as a finished list, but as something that I think would be more valuable than merely using test scores. Still, I was concerned that the P-C article made it seem as if standardized test scores would be the only academic marker used in the resource allocation policy.

Third, we should (a) give the administration wide latitude to put together a comprehensive plan that will achieve this goal according to the selected measure, and (b) hold the Superintendent accountable for achieving (or at least making significant progress toward) that goal within a given time frame. The latitude should be wide so as to include the suggested elements in the P-C article linked to above, redistricting, and even possible changes/additions to the Facilities Master Plan (e.g., perhaps an addition at Kirkwood or a 4th Junior High School). I think there are two benefits to this third point. I think it gives a diversity initiative the highest chance of success. Whatever knowledge I have of these issues, it pails in comparison to people who focus their lives and careers on it (teachers, principals, district admin staff), and rather than inadvertently hamstringing their imaginations and/or means of achieving the optimal result, we should free them up to accomplish our good goals. On the flip side, giving the administration wide latitude means that failure to achieve the goal cannot be blamed on the community's failure or the board's poor decision making. The failure would be in the imagination of the administration, or in its execution. You wouldn't have a situation like last Spring where the budget problems the district faced were sometimes blamed on the community's input, the board's poor decision making, and/or the administration's failure.

Ultimately, I think this sort of approach is more in line with the spirit of the Diversity Policy that I've discussed elsewhere, and it is also closer to the intended model of policy governance for our school board, i.e., the Carver model. Specifically, it focuses on ends, delegation of  implementation/means of the policy, and monitoring of success.

As always, I'm open to criticisms and objections. What am I missing? Thoughts? Questions? Concerns?

Should we stay (with more resources), or should we go (on a bus)?

The Iowa City Community School District has been having more meetings about redistricting, the diversity policy, magnet schools, and attendance area. I've been doing some preliminary evaluation of data from the 2012-2013 school year as a way to give community members insight into the relative costs of various proposals that are currently on the table.

I have previously expressed my support for the spirit of the diversity policy (here), and I am strongly committed to that same spirit. I am not committed to the specific percentages, guidelines, time-frame, or any particular strategy for accomplishing the spirit of the diversity policy. I'm open to various possibilities, but I am not open to continuing the status quo, nor do I simply want change for change's sake. I want meaningful change that is intended to address the structural problems harming our educational system for our least-advantaged students. 

A few months ago, I offered a survey (here) mainly as a way to help our community think about the various possibilities related to redistricting. I identified to dominant strategies that could have some effect on reducing burdens that our community has directly and indirectly places on low-income students. 

Strategy One (from the survey): "Allocating additional resources to a school over a long period of time (especially more teachers to have a better student to teacher ratio) is the best way to remove educational barriers to learning that disproportionately affect low-income students, which results in the district having no need, or at the least, very little need for boundary changes."

A number of respondents expressed sympathy for this approach. I wanted to crunch the numbers to get a better indication of the actual costs associated with using this method as the primary vehicle for removing those educational barriers.

Relevant assumptions and limitations:

• You would need class sizes at or below 15 students at the Kindergarten level (17-19 is recommended for the average Kindergarten classroom), 19 students for 1st and 2nd grade, and 23 students from 3rd-6th grade. (It may be that class sizes would need to be lower than this to truly make a difference, but I needed to make an assumption that seemed reasonable.)
• I only considered increased resources at 3 schools: Kirkwood, Twain, and Wood. We have some others elementary schools that are well above 50% for their FRL rate, and they may have to be included if current trends continue.
• Class sizes for those three schools and others for 2012-2013 can be found here (see page 165 in the pdf file).
• Based on the official class sizes for 2012-2013 at those three schools and the suggested class sizes above, you would need 4 more teachers at Kirkwood and Twain, and 3 more teachers at Wood.
• Any changes to increase resources at those three schools would be budget neutral, i.e., there would be tradeoffs with other programs or funds.
• The tradeoffs would come from the 11 elementary schools that have FRL rates lower than 30%.
• The cost of reassigning a teacher (salary and benefits) would average at least $75K. Teacher salaries for 2014-2015 can be found here (page 158 in the pdf file), and the information there suggests that the assumption is a fair one. I am, however, open to other figures if they are more compelling.

Given these assumptions, the strategy one model (i.e., the increased resources model) would need to reassign the 11 teachers (or an equivalent amount of resources to affect a similar outcome) from the 11 elementary schools with FRL rates lower than 30%. Thoughts, questions, or concerns about just using Strategy One?

Strategy Two (from the survey): "Boundary changes that achieve socioeconomic integration for all our schools is the best way to remove educational barriers to learning that disproportionately affect low-income student, and there would be little or no need to allocate additional resources to particular schools since they would be balanced socioeconomically."

A number of respondents expressed sympathy for this approach. So, how does the number crunching work for this model?

Relevant assumptions and limitations:

• There would need to be extensive changes to the attendance areas at Twain, Wood, and Kirkwood in order to use this method. 
• I used the number of buses in 2012-2013, which are here and here. The total number of buses at all levels of 102.
• The per bus cost is difficult to calculate. We are charged a lump sum from a 3rd party for our busing services, divided between the general education fund and other funds. Approximately 2/3 dollars spent on busing is not from the general education fund, leaving only about 1/3 of the cost coming form the general education fund.
• Our primary concern is with general education costs, as it has the most significant impact on the classroom, and it was the reason behind the budget cuts last Spring. See here for my discussion of that.
• The total general education costs for busing in 2012-2013 was a little less than $4 million.
• That figure divided by 102 results in a cost of just a little less than $40K per bus.
• The number of students transported in buses varies considerably, with some carrying as many as 75 students as evidenced here.
• The number of buses at Kirkwood, Twain, and Wood vary (see here). Twain had 4 in 2012-2013, Wood had 1, and Kirkwood had 0. 
• I only considered increased resources at 3 schools: Kirkwood, Twain, and Wood. We have some others elementary schools that are well above 50% for their FRL rate, and they may have to be included if current trends continue.
• Any changes to increase resources at those three schools would be budget neutral, i.e., there would be tradeoffs with other programs or funds.
• The tradeoffs would come from the 11 elementary schools that have FRL rates lower than 30%.

 Given these assumptions and guidelines, I estimated that Strategy Two (redistricting only) we would need between 3-5 new buses. At least 2-3 at Kirkwood, at least 1-2 additional buses at Wood, and probably no additional ones for Twain (given that they already have 4). At a cost of $40K per bus, that would be the cost equivalent of about 0.2 teachers taken from each of the 11 elementary schools with FRL rates under 30%. Thoughts, questions, or concerns about just using Strategy Two?

My Commentary:

I appreciate that people offering both of these strategies are dissatisfied with the present state of affairs. Our system is unjust and disproportionately burdens low-income students. That needs to be addressed, and I think our community has the political will do to so now.

Still, I think there are significant challenges that we have in using either of these methods as the only overall solution. There is no realistic way of getting Wood and Twain under 50% FRL given the constraints that the administration placed on the process and approved by the board (the cluster constraints, mainly). Furthermore, given that so many students, with a high-concentration of poverty, live around Kirkwood, it poses its own challenges for both models. 

Can you fit more teachers there without redistricting? Are other resources able to improve academic achievement as well as lower class sizes? How much are we harming low-income students if we redistrict them to a school that is significantly further away from their closest school?

In light of these challenges and more, I think it would be best to pursue a hybrid approach of these two strategies -- leaning more to the redistricting side of the equation unless there are significant overriding reasons to not do so. To not do so, would have bad results (i.e., increased class sizes) for a majority of our school district's students. Despite what common sense may suggest, it is significantly more costly to pursue Strategy One exclusively rather than Strategy Two exclusively.

Furthermore, the communal context may dictate that you take different strategies with different schools. Twain's already heavy bus load may make it such that redistricting is more attractive there. Kirkwood's capacity limits may mean that we will have to redistrict some of its students to other schools, while increasing its resources? Perhaps Alexander will spur real estate development, which would help reduce the ultimate need for more resources at Wood and Alexander? Perhaps the administration needs more latitude to accomplish the goal of addressing injustice in our system, while we hold them accountable for the results.

Thoughts, questions, or concerns about my commentary?

Some Questions about New Maps

The administration will be presenting various proposals to the ICCSD Board of Directors. The maps can be found near the end of this document. Here are some questions I had about the maps.

Overall:

Does the administration believe that keeping the cluster model is best for reducing the achievement gap? What was the reason for keeping the cluster idea?

Which aspects of the map and proposals are modular?

Is the FRL rate at Twain (in the non-magnet option), Wood, Hills, and the new South Elementary significantly better than their current, extremely high, FRL rate?

In 2019, will the North Elementary School and Lemme have extremely low FRL rates? If so, is this a concern? It isn't prohibited, but if you get too many schools like that it will result in some schools being well north of 50% FRL in our district.

Which parts of the proposal are revenue neutral, and which are not? For those that are not, what are preliminary estimates of how much will be gained/lost?

Paired Schools:

Can we keep the option to pair Wickham and Kirkwood after 2019? Why or why not?

Were options to use paired schools considered for Cluster 2? If not, why not?

Can some redistricting occur along with paired schools?

How were upper campuses versus lower campuses selected? I wonder whether having Kirkwood as the lower campus would decrease participation in after school activities for the students living near Kirkwood, and I know that most after-school activities take place in upper grade level. 

Magnets:

Why were Lincoln and Twain chosen as possible magnets? 

What alternatives are there beyond those two particular schools?

What happens to a school if one or both magnets fail?

Have we ruled out school-within-a-school magnet options? If so, why? (basic question stolen from EDJ)

Islands:

If islands are acceptable for FRL reasons, then why was the Lemme island which constitutes the bulk of its FRL percentage eliminated?

Questions that Directors should consider:

What modifications to the maps would get you to support the maps that ultimately result?




*I will update as I think of more questions, or if good ones are provided in comments.

On Resignations, Civility, and Rational Debate

Recently, the president of the ICCSD Board of Education resigned her position. She did so for "personal reasons," and many individuals have speculated that the caustic nature of our civil discourse was a significant contributor to her resignation. I am hesitant to speculate about her motivations, but I do know that all of our directors put in a substantial number of hours in service to the district and there is a great deal of conflict that often comes with the position. So, it is reasonable interpretation.

I also agree that the caustic character of our community's disagreements about education is unfortunate. It inhibits rational debate and deliberation about controversial topics. And for my money, I believe it is much more important for someone to engage in public discourse and argumentation properly than for that person to have the correct opinion about a particular subject matter.

So, how should rational deliberation take place? The best place to start is to understand what happens when real communication has taken place (I'm channeling my inner J. Habermas, in case you can't tell). If I've successfully communicated something to Person B, here's what must have happened:

1. I said something that meant something.
2. I presented something that I believe to be true.
3. I presented something that is about our shared world together.
4. I wanted to reach an agreement with Person B about my statement.

As such, an attempt at communication can fail is for any one of these four reasons. Now, for two people to participate in rational debate, it is necessary for both interlocutors to assume that the other is trying to communicate in this way. Otherwise, one or more of the parties is just trying to manipulate the other.

What do I mean by that?

If someone is incapable of uttering meaningful sentences, then there can be no rational deliberation. If I believe that Person B is not presenting what she takes to be true, but only what is political expedient, then there can be no rational deliberation. If I believe that Person C only makes a certain claim because of his geographical location, then there can be no rational deliberation. If my goal in making my claim is to make another person look bad, then there can be no rational deliberation. If I assume that there is always a malicious ulterior motive lying behind each of Person D's statements, then there can be no rational deliberation.

If you say you support rational deliberation, then you should engage in public and private argumentation in accord with these assumptions. You must assume that people are presenting ideas and thoughts they believe to be true. You must assume that they are trying to convince you that their view is right. If you can't do those things, then you are inhibiting rational deliberation.

So, I encourage all of us, for the sake of rational deliberation and rational debate, to assume the best about our interlocutors. Particularly those with whom you disagree. Assume that they are presenting what they think is true. Assume that they are expressing their view to convince you or other participants in the dialogue.

But what if your interlocutor is violating these four assumptions? Does that mean that the nature of rational deliberation changes? Does that mean we can stop assuming the best about their arguments? Does that mean that we should respond like for like?

I'm not naive enough to think that everyone is really interested in rational deliberation in this sense. Some people will be trying to manipulate the system. Some people will use strategic means to reach a desired outcome without going through a legitimate deliberative or democratic procedure. In such a case, there is no rational deliberation, since the other person is violating one or more of the assumptions, but at least you aren't the reason why there is no rational deliberation. In that circumstance, we would do well to engage their arguments, to engage in the dialogue assuming the best about them, even if we are wrong.

Raises for ICCSD Administration: A Proposal

I've argued previously (see here) that we have our budget problems primarily because (a) we rely too heavily on grants that expired, and (b) that our cost of living raises have tended to far exceed yearly state supplemental aid (allowable growth).

On the May 13 board meeting, the board approved, on a 5-2 vote, that central administrators were not to receive a raise for the upcoming school year. Now, the administration will be proposing tonight an interpretation of that vote which (a) gives six central administrators (the superintendent, the two assistant superintendents, CFO, COO, and the head of HR/communication) no raise next year, but (b) gives other administration employees a significant raise. As the board meeting tonight, the administration is proposing to increase the budget category for administration from this year to next year by approximately 2.66% (see the Press-Citizen's article on the matter here). There is reason to think that this number is artificially low, since (a) six of the highest paid administrators are not receiving raises, and (b) there was some attrition that was not filled.

It is important for the board to find out tonight what the actual proposed raises are for all administrators.

Furthermore, the school board should modify these proposed raises.

Here would be my modified proposal: 

(a) accept the part of the proposal that the six administrators will receive no raises for next year.

(b) set the raise for a given year (2014-2015 in this case) for all other administrators, including the other central administration employees and building administrators (e.g., principals) at no more than the average of allowable growth of that year and the prior four years. 

2015 will have a 4% allowable growth, 2014 had 2%, 2013 had 2%, 2012 had 0%, and 2011 had 2%. The State Board of Education provides these figures here. The average of that five year period was exactly 2%. With this figure in mind, set the raises of all employees who have not yet negotiated contracts at no more than 2%, which would be in line with allowable growth rates over the past 5 years.

There are three major benefits to this approach: first, it stops digging an even larger budget hole. We will have to pay the piper again if we continue on this trajectory. Do we want more budget cuts? Second, it is sustainable, and our current trajectory is not. It isn't a cut or 0% raises, so it is a policy that we could keep well into the future, and it isn't paying more than we can handle. Third, it will give people a strong motivation to support future allowable growth increases from the state.

I urge the board to adopt this modest proposal, and I believe it close enough to the proposal before the board tonight such that it fits the spirit of the both the board's proposal to stop all raises for central administration and the administration's proposed raises.


UPDATE: If you want to see how much just tying administration to no more than 2% raise. Take all the administrator's salaries (see page 156 of the board agenda for tonight) and see what the total would be with, say, a 2.66% raise versus a 2% raise. And realize that the difference will actually be more than that for my modified proposal, since six of the highest paid central administrators will not be receiving 2% raises this next year.

UPDATE 2: The modified proposal would save approximately $40,000 next year compared to the administration's proposal based on my rough calculations. Although that seems like a small amount, (a) it is enough to, for example, save 7th grade football, and (b) it will be compounded and grow exponentially as future percentage raises are applied to it.

UPDATE 3: My $40,000 is under playing the savings. The proposed raises tend to be 3% and 4% depending on the position.

UPDATE 4: Based on a more precise calculation, the amount saved is a little over $59,000. Here is the spreadsheet I used to make the calculation.

What's the purpose of the Diversity Policy? What motivates my support of it?

I recently asked readers to participate in a survey about redistricting and socioeconomically integrating our schools in the Iowa City Community School District: here. You can still participate, too! I noted in the post that I see the survey as a guide for having a conversation about the implicit motivations and purposes underlying the policy. What follows is a reflection on some of these matters. I should also say upfront that despite some concerns about how the redistricting matter was handled two board meeting ago, I was pleased to see that the school board was talking publicly at the last board meeting about these motivations and purposes (although I think casting a larger vision would be better, more below on that). More specifically, the board is willing to consider options that fulfill the spirit of the diversity policy even if it means violating the letter of the DP. See the Press-Citizen article about that decision: here.

So, what is the spirit of the DP? And what is the letter?

The "letter" of the DP is the actual language and prescriptions used in the document itself: included here. The actual language used specifically states a goal. The goal, as stated, is to provide an "equitable learning environment" (see my post here on our inability to talk about "equity") and that the policy should result in "greater diversity and enhanced learning."* The means for achieving this goal are also stated in the letter of the policy: at each level (elementary, junior high, and high school), the policy specifies an acceptable range of (a) free and free lunch rates (i.e., the percentage of students at a particular school who are approved for free or reduced lunch) and (b) utilization rates (e.g., the percentage of the building's capacity that is filled). There are specific requirements that are and were supposed to be met (we are already, arguably, in violation of the DP with some of those requirements, and the board has specifically approved violations of it), and a specific date for being fully within these acceptable ranges.

So much for the the letter of the DP.

What about the spirit? I believe is it expressed, partly and vaguely, in the stated goals of the policy. That is, the goal is to increase equality, diversity, and academic outcomes for students across the district. Were I to express it, I would say that the purpose is to promote justice and just outcomes, and I have a very particular idea about what 'justice' means (see here). 

So why is the current system unjust? In other words, how does our current practice in the ICCSD reinforce and exacerbate injustice?

Here's my answer: in the status quo, there is a very strong correlation between socioeconomic status and how one fares in terms of education and in life more generally. There are exceptions to this general tendency, but it a very strong correlation.     

Here is a helpful quote from a former teacher about the cause of the achievement gap (the difference in average academic achievement between low-income and higher-income students):

"These "at risk" kids have a myriad of social/physical needs that need to be met before they are ready to learn-Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Lack of stability, hunger, inadequate medical care, etc will always affect a child's ability to learn. Many, many studies show that family income and parental education are the strongest predictors of student success. Many studies also show that the first 5 years are the most important and once a child falls behind, they DO NOT catch up. We will see more and more "at risk" families as the income gap widens and we have more non-English speaking parents."

So, there is good reason to think that the deck is already stacked against low-income students. 

But how exactly does our school district exacerbate this problem: 

(1) There are cultural/social ways that our district has indirectly increased the achievement gap by not effectively countering the effects of having the deck stacked against these kids. Here are some of them: the socioeconomic makeup of a school has a significant affect on teacher workload and burnout, and teacher burnout and/or turnover reduces achievement, and an increased workload makes it easier for students to fall through the cracks. It also affects resources at the PTO/PTA level and therefore the ability to supplement needs (how much is, say, donated to Kirkwood's PTO compared to, say, Shimek's?). There are also strong correlations between income levels and (a) the political capital of parents, (b) volunteer time, (c) the level of support from the entire community (how many articles do we see in the local paper about things going on at Grant Wood as opposed to, say, Garner?), and the (d) knowledge of the educational system we find ourselves in so that they can make a difference. These things individually might have little effect on the achievement gap, but they indicate how our current system makes it even harder for these schools and kids than it has to be.

(2) The injustice is built into our building plans, particularly in the past (some parts of the FMP are designed to address these inequities, although it will continue to exacerbate other aspects of it). We have tended to target affluent areas for new schools, and allowed our older building to deteriorate and not be updated. This results in (a) overcrowding in schools, particularly in schools that are less affluent, and (b) not having things like air conditioners in our older schools, (including all schools that have a high concentration of low-income students). These differences in structural/building conditions also have an affect on academic achievement, which tends to increase the achievement gap. 

So, the spirit of the DP -- the DP as it should be understood rather than the particular requirements specified in the document itself -- is to (a) stop reinforcing and making the achievement gap worse (as a wise person has said about our budget, maybe we can get out of the hole if we just stop digging!) and (b) attempt to restack the deck in favor of all of our kids, particularly our at-risk children.

So, what means should we use to accomplish this goal?

Here is where I think the administration's expertise should come into play. Once the "spirit" of the DP has been articulated, give the administration the task of accomplishing that task and then hold them accountable to it -- even if it means that people ultimately lose their jobs over it.

Basically, as I understand it, there are two general system-level strategies for reducing the achievement gap. The first is through increased resources  including student-support services (food, medical care, counseling, parental coaching, tutors, and so forth) and lower teacher-to-student ratios. Consistent use of these means can have an affect, but the cost is that (1) it takes more money (and remember those budget problems?), and (2) we often don't have the capacity to reduce teacher-to-student ratios in those schools (we tend to build new schools in affluent areas!).

The second strategy is through socioeconomic integration. The benefit of it is that it reduces the need for lower teacher-to-student ratios at particular schools. The cost is that the means of integration may be unpalatable to a lot of people (most importantly to some people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of said integration) and it simply may not work in our district.

As for me, I think we cast the vision of what we want the outcome to be -- i.e., we want justice. We want our school district to remedy rather than further entrench the injustice already in the system. We want a comprehensive plan from the administration on how to best accomplish this outcome. Finally, we will (or we should) hold the administration accountable, given their expertise on the matter, for how well they achieve justice -- or, at the very least, make significant progress toward it.      

*Technically, the language states this policy (the DP) "will result" in these outcomes. I assume that the board members don't think they can establish a matter of fact by pure fiat, so I interpreted it charitably as "should."

Value-disagreements regarding strategies for reducing the achievement gap: a survey

-----------Survey: here---------------

Recently at a work session on redistricting, the ICCSD board of directors agreed, in general, to a timeline for addressing redistricting and its diversity policy by this fall for the 2015-2016 school year. For a report about that work session, see here. The work session seems to have established a reasonable timeline for making decisions so that appropriate adjustments can be made for the 2015-2016 school year, but I was concerned that the board was setting itself up for another stalled effort. As a whole, the board was concerned with the impact that the final maps would have on academic performance, and they suggested that the administration should look at providing new maps without having to adhere strictly to the letter of the diversity policy. That is, the board seemed to indicate that it would tolerate flexibility on the use of islands, the specific numbers involved, and so forth.

But, unfortunately, as a group, the board did not give the administration much direction concerning how it should adjudicate between value-disagreements implicit in the construction of a new map. When will attempts to socioeconomically integrate schools harm rather than help improve, educational outcomes, particularly with regard to the achievement gap between minority or low-income students and those who are not? I realize that the administration will be able to see what the board, as a whole, finds unacceptable, but it is not clear at all whether they have given sufficient information for the administration to use in constructing maps that would satisfy the board's collective goals.

From the evidence available, it seems as if the board simply does not know what could possibly be satisfactory to them as a whole. That's a big problem, and it is a result of a bigger problem about the lack of quality deliberation about values that I've mentioned a few times previously: here and here.

So, I thought it may be helpful for our community to work through some of these value-based disagreements.

With that in mind, I wrote a survey, here, that I am encouraging people to consider and to take. 

The primary value of the survey is not that it will provide data to inform our decision making about these values -- I think that's unlikely -- but the primary value is that it will help us have good conversations about these value disagreements with the goal of eventually reaching a consensus about our value-laden goals. A survey like this would have been much more fruitful for discussion and for research at the community engagement meetings over the Spring semester.

In short, my point is that if we don't know where we are going, then there is no way to determine (a) how to get there, (b) whether we've arrived, or (c) whether a particular strategy is useful for getting us there. 

I think these survey questions would be helpful for the ICCSD board of directors to consider as I think their collective answers would be helpful for giving better direction to the administration as it constructs maps that must, in the end, satisfy at least a majority of them. 

My guess is that it would be more successful than relying on clairvoyance on the part of the administration.

UPDATE: Here are survey results for all respondents: link. Do not expect these results to tell you what our community thinks. The results are not representative of our community, as it only includes a small snap shot of highly motivated people who read my blog or are connected to me through other mediums. As I mentioned above, the primary value of this survey is to find out what you and I believe and to talk about it publicly with others. I hope the results are helpful to that end.