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.

Why It Was Wrong to Postpone Discussion of Redistricting

The video contains the discussion and vote on the decision to postpone the redistricting discussion that was to take place at the May 13, 2014 ICCSD Board Meeting. Directors Swesey, McGinness, Kirschling, and Board President Hoelscher voted for the motion. The remaining board members, Directors Lynch, Fields, and Dorau, voted against the motion.

After watching it unfold, I made a number of snap judgments about why the vote was made and how it was planned, and I was also concerned about the decision to conduct the work session and the public board discussion over the summer. Making big decisions over the summer is a bad policy. But since I have no hard evidence to support my snap judgments, I'm doing my best to leave them in the past.

Nevertheless, I still strongly believe that the decision was wrong -- both on the merits of the argument made, and because it was just flat wrong.

The merits of the argument:

The argument for no discussion is nonsense. Here's my best reconstruction of the argument:

(P1) We got the maps last night (Monday). 

(P2) We need more time to prepare. 

Therefore, we should postpone discussion. 

First, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Simply because one person or one group of people are not prepared does not mean that a fruitful discussion cannot happen. Furthermore, the discussion could very well have informed our board members who were not ready for the discussion. There is no requirement that unprepared board members speak in a discussion, and it was clear that a goodly number of audience members felt prepared to discuss the issue.

Second, both premises for the argument are, at best, misleading. The changes between the third iteration of the map and the final one presented to the board were minimal, and the third map was released on May 2, 2014 a good ten days before the board meeting and there was extensive feedback and discussion on the Engage Iowa City website, which was promoted by the administration.

In short, the case for postponement given the stated reasons was extremely weak. They are so weak that it makes me curious about why the decision was, in fact, made -- that is, what goal did the four board members actually have in voting for the motion. I don't know, and I'm hesitant to speculate.

Why the decision was just flat wrong: 

The decision to postpone was disrespectful to other board members and members of our community who came out to speak. I'm not saying that the words used by Swesey, McGinness, Hoelscher, or Kirschling were rude or injurious. In point of fact, I believe focusing too much on the words used, the tone, and so forth miss what it means to truly respect someone. That is to say, respect requires treating people as agents capable of making their own decisions (as autonomous agents), and so long as the exercise of that freedom does not interfere with the autonomy of another or subvert the common good, then we should do what is in our power to cultivate such respect. We shouldn't treat people as a mere means to accomplish our goals.

Given that the item was on the agenda, Lynch, Fields, and Dorau as well as concerned citizens who wished to speak had a fair and legitimate expectation that they would be able to speak on the matter at hand. The President even states that community comments on agenda items will take place when that agenda item comes up on the agenda. And we know that a large number of people wanted to speak*, but the postponement denied them the opportunity without good cause. In this context, it did not treat those who came to speak with the inherent dignity they possess. It treated them merely as a means to accomplish the goals of some board members.

Note also that I'm not saying that the move was procedurally invalid according to Robert's Rules of Order. Rather, I'm saying that they used those procedures to act wrongly toward their fellow board members and toward the community members who wished to speak on the subject. 

If the goal was not to have the item on the agenda, then a decision should have been made at the prior board meeting. 

If the goal was simply to have a work session and vote on it over the summer (a bad policy, in my opinion, but still reasonable), then the motion should have been proposed after the presentation and after interested parties were given their opportunity to speak.

Based on these considerations, the four board members who voted for the motion should issue a public apology to the community and to the other board members.

(*I have asked for the number of people who signed up to speak, but apparently the speaker cards were not returned to Board Secretary)

Budget Cuts 101

An article I wrote for Little Village on the ICCSD budget cuts came out today. Online link here.

Magazine (pdf) link here.

You can try this one, too (pdf).

Polarization and Value-Disagreements

Some concerned community members (here and here) have complained about the atmosphere and level of discourse at the last Cluster 2 redistricting meeting. Based on the discourse leading up to the meeting, I expected it to be inflammatory. I expected both those opposed to the particular redistricting lines (I expected this contingent to be the largest) and those in favor of economic integration by means of redistricting to be geared up for a fight. Although I hate the following sort of either/or thinking, I need to say it in order for you to understand what I'm arguing for: if I were presented with 'we can have the second map with its economic integration, or the status quo', I'd choose the second map in no time flat.

I also confess that I like to argue (surprise, surprise, I know). So I was looking forward to the Cluster 2 meeting. I knew going in that I shouldn't expect much in terms of a good, value-based debate. I've written about this particular problem previously. As such, I expected participants to focus on factual disagreements (this course of action will destroy the neighborhood v. it will not; balancing FRL rates will not reduce the achievement gap v. it will likely make a significant contribution toward reducing it) and challenging ambiguous concepts (a mile walk isn't truly walkable v. many people walk that distance to school regularly OR FRL rates are a good indicator of economic integration v. they miss many salient features), rather than substantive deliberation about underlying value-disagreements.

Admittedly, it is hard to deliberate about values and ends, particularly with people we barely know in only about an hour. Still, I did think that it would be possible to work with my table to find middle-ground solutions that, for the most part, would allow us to support each of the most important underlying values of both sides in the argument. So, I went into the meeting with the goal of getting our table to discuss ways of accomplishing economic integration at the same time as preserving, at least, a small perimeter (say, 0.3 miles or some such) around a school.

Our table of six began the discussion at the either/or level. At least 2 people, me included, took the position that the second iteration of the Cluster 2 map was better than the status quo, and we'd choose it over the status quo, whereas at least 2 people seemed to take the opposite view. After realizing we weren't going to get very far with this fundamental disagreement, we started entertaining concerns that could be addressed while still accomplishing each of our goals. I'm not sure what we ultimately accomplished, but I was relatively pleased with how the table was able to identify the benefits and the challenges of the Cluster 2 map while looking for ways to improve upon it without sacrificing economic integration. I believe it also allowed us to see, albeit darkly, what our value-disagreements really were.

In the absence of quality, value-based deliberation, I think this sort of middle-ground thinking is about the most we can hope for. I believe it is better than continually reiterating one disjunct of the either/or: either this particular proposal or the status quo. We truly have nothing to talk about if that's our approach. Furthermore, it allows us to see what is valuable and good in our interlocutor's position, even if we ultimately think that position misguided. People who disagree probably have noble intentions, just as we do, and they are most likely no more evil than the rest of us.

Of course, I also recognize that there comes a time, and it should happen very soon, when a decision needs to be made. I think Nicholas Johnson's post gives insight into how that decision ought to be made with deliberate expression of the values and goals embodied in the policy, and with a clear awareness of which ones are most important in our social context.

Postscript: Here are three reconstructed, value-based arguments that I heard last Thursday at the Cluster 2 meeting. Note that none of them interact with the others except at the level of supporting different final conclusions about redistricting. Furthermore, I believe that the relevant factual and conceptual elements in each argument can be sufficiently established and clarified (respectively). I have my own opinions about the relative weights of these values, but we would do well to address them as expressions of a difference in values rather than as an expression of malfeasance.

Policies should respect individual choices and personal preferences. Many families have made choices about where to live based on the school currently associated with that area, and I would not choose to redistrict us now because of the disruption it would cause us. So, I will continue to support the view that it is wrong to redistrict my family.

Socioeconomic imbalances in our schools result in great differences between our schools in terms of academic resources, parental involvement, teacher-workload, and so forth. Any difference is only justified if the difference benefits those members of our society who are least well off (i.e., the poor and those with special needs). The differences resulting from socioeconomic imbalances benefits those who are most well off and harms those least well off. Therefore, we should redistrict to better balance socioeconomic levels.

Being able to walk to work, to school, and to shopping is a crucial value in order to promote environmental sustainability. It is good to promote activities and ways of life that help our environment rather than harm it. Since redistricting in the manner suggested does not help our environment, we should not do it.