E-mail 
E-mail 
E-mail Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2008 > September > 06 > Entry
Reconsidering the former school board
Let’s remember back for a moment to the excitement of 2001. Gail Littlejohn, a retired corporate attorney, and three allies won four seats on the school board, taking control with a majority and promising big changes that would help lead the district back to respectability.
And for the first few years, the Kids First team had a remarkable run of successes. They replaced a well meaning but floundering superintendent with an efficient manager in Percy Mack, a move that was well received in the community. They put a reform in place that emphasized teacher training and focused on math and reading instruction. They got the NAACP and the state to agree to settle the 20-year-old desegregation case, bringing millions in cash and releasing the district from court supervision. They got a huge bond issue passed to rebuild all the schools in the city. Eventually, Dayton even had enough test score gain to jump from “academic emergency to “continuous improvement” in the state ratings. And for at least those first few years, Kids First got support from the rest of the school board, business leaders and much of the community.
But by 2007 a weary Littlejohn had stepped down as school board president and then left Dayton altogether, a crucial school board levy was soundly defeated and two key remaining Kids First allies on the board suffered stunning defeats to little known and underfunded challengers.
How did it all come apart? The dismantling was helped along by a handful of key missteps by the board and school administration. Some of the moves this year by the new school board and its hand-picked interim superintendent Kurt Stanic demonstrate that some of those past decisions haven’t worked out as the old board had hoped. Let’s consider a few examples:
The Reynolds purchase. In 2003, Dayton spent just under $20 millions to purchase, renovate and move into two downtown buildings that formerly housed Reynolds & Reynolds’ world headquarters. City officials, including the mayor, begged the district not to do the deal. The editorial board at the DDN was sharply critical. But they went ahead with it.
Treasurer Stan Lucas defends the purchase to this day as sensible at the time and necessary to consolidate administrative operations. But the board certainly paid a big political price for the move thanks to fallout that they failed to anticipate from angry residents that eventually grew bigger and helped fuel future electoral defeat.
Let’s look at a couple recent developments and what they say about this move. Earlier this summer, the board said it would consider putting one of the two Reynolds buildings up for sale because it could fit all its administrators in one building, suggesting two buildings was more space than needed. And second, the board just sold its former First Street administration building to the Dayton Technology Design High School, a charter school the board sponsors, for $1. I specifically remember questioning a confident Littlejohn about her assertion that proceeds from selling the First Street building would defray a few hundred thousand dollars of the cost of the Reynolds purchase. It has sat vacant until the sale to DTDHS.
Debra Brathwaite. It was pretty clear soon after Brathwaite arrived as deputy superintendent under Mack that the board viewed her as a successor to be groomed. But after the board changed and Mack left the new board decided not to go with Brathwaite, who took the matter personally and left to follow Mack to Columbia, S.C. Stanic, who they picked instead, told me he personally prefers to groom internal candidates to replace himself when he leaves and when I asked about the board not picking the candidate they groomed, he said if the board was not comfortable with her they made the right decision. It seems this board thinks grooming Brathwaite was a mistake.
The 2007 school levy. Many people were shocked when the school board placed a huge 15.17-mill levy on the ballot in May of 2007, and a lot of them were angry. Today the board is asking voters for a significantly more modest 4.9-mill levy and Stanic said he personally would never have supported the larger levy.
The choice to go for the big levy demonstrates two big missteps by the former board. First, the board worked very hard to hold off a levy as long as possible. This was a noble goal, but the heavy focus on delaying a levy possibly blinded the board to the danger of waiting too long. There were some factors that worked against the board that were beyond its control, but it’s now clear it waited too long.
Had the board used some of the political capital it had earned during its run of success from 2001 to 2004 it probably could have gotten a 5-mill levy passed at that time and reduced the fiscal stress that eventually came in 2007.
It’s also now clear that the 15.17-mill levy had no chance of passing and was just an enormous waste of effort and resources. The board absolutely should have aimed lower with a smaller levy. That’s clear to just about everyone now.
School cuts. Last year, the board cut music, art and gym and eliminated teacher planning periods during the day, among a host of reductions. This was the biggest problem for teachers, who complained all year that they and their students were fatigued by the long hours of classwork without breaks. Stanic has since restored most of those programs and the planning periods while living within the same budget constraints. If they could do it this year, why couldn’t they do it last year?
Administrative cuts. A hot debate during the 2007 levy campaign was the size of the administration. Despite several rounds of cuts by the board, many observers still felt the administration was not cut deeply enough. Mack insisted he had gone as far as he could go. But this summer Stanic’s first order of business was to cut $2.2 million from the budget, including several more administration jobs. So it seems there were more cuts to be had at the central office.
Specialty schools vs. traditional schools. Mack and Brathwaite attempted to compete with Dayton’s huge charter school movement by starting their own charter-like schools. And its hard to argue their approach didn’t have merit. The Dayton Early College Academy and the boys and girls schools all are among the be among the best scoring schools in the city. But critics argued that they focused too much on those pet projects and not enough on the traditional schools, where most of the district’s kids attended.
That criticism seems to fit with Stanic’s approach to reform. Stanic has said several times that the district needs a heavy focus on instruction in its rank and file classrooms and that is where he has pledged to make his biggest push for improvement.
Looking back at the Kids First era, what comes to your mind as the key moments that led to their successes and ultimate downfall?
Permalink | Comments (11) | Post your comment | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
Comments
By Teacher
September 9, 2008 6:53 PM | Link to this
I heard Dr. J. Brown has also decided to leave the district. Another one bites the dust.
By Oldprof
September 8, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this
Is the presumption that the board was a homogenous team since the start of this millenium? There have been, what, 16 different board members since 2000? Three different superintendents? Funding up, down, all around, charters springing up willy-nilly and every-changing state standards? It’s impossible to come up with accurate assessments of progress when there’s no long-term stability.
By Mary
September 8, 2008 7:59 AM | Link to this
Good for you, Joe, on the board accountability issue. Just curious, do you think it is more important to protect school day offerings in art and music, and class sizes, or to continue to finance all the after school offerings such as basketball and football?
By Joe Lacey
September 7, 2008 11:51 PM | Link to this
Concerned Daytonian is wrong. I voted no on the teacher cuts because the board was voting to allow the Superintendent to make the cuts without recomending those cuts for board approval. I felt that the board should have been more directly accountable for the fiscal policy of the district. The board does not have “planning sessions” or any type of regular meeting that is not open to the public.
By Richard
September 7, 2008 11:15 PM | Link to this
Scott your are realy on the money, but why did you stop there? The list of missteps by “Kids and Staff Last Team”, including Mack and Brathwaite, goes alot further. They fooled alot of us. School construction problems with very little local or minority workers until recently was another big concern that we heard about. You’re right Mskiles 314, DPS have loss a great number of students because of its leaders lack of appreciation and support for the extra curriculars. You would think that they would understand the relationship to student academic achievement by looking at Stivers and other “research” that they claimed to be using to make decisions. How sad that DPS has not one high school marching band from a city with such a rich music history. Please everyone, lets vote yes on the school levy and help the new superintendent and board address the needs of our city’s students!
By greener
September 7, 2008 10:26 PM | Link to this
there we go now didnt you get D moated to a opinion poll job
By Rick
September 7, 2008 7:55 PM | Link to this
I believe the KidsFirst team did a lot of good things. I don’t believe they did the most important, which was to improve discipline. A blogger named Ray has posted on DaytonOS a thread called More Urban School District Comparisons. He compares a variety of things, like income, average SAT and ACT scores, average income, and lastly the discipline raters per 1000 students. Dayton has consistently disciplined much, much, much less than do other large schools. Jim Debrosse wrote an article in1994 on this issue. I provided similar information to the DPS school board for at least three subsequent years, but the Board refused to have adequate discipline in the schools. Check out Ray’s post.
By Concerned Daytonian
September 7, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this
Interesting analysis Scott. I’m reminded of the saying “Monday morning quaterback”, always easier to call better plays AFTER the game! While I have never agreed with all the decisions made by the Kid’s First Team, I have always respected their resolve and determination to do something! Perhaps this is best realized by Mr. Lacey’s comments which once again state a problem but offer 1.) no accountability on his part….heck, he was on the board and obviously voted for the cuts, and 2.) no solution as to what could have or should been done differently. The voters can always count on ol’Joe to finger point, but just don’t expect him to problem solve! As for my assessement of your blog Scott: Again, I think it’s easy to question decisions after the fact, but much harder to sit in the hot seat and make em’. Ask Joe, I hear he’s quiet as a mouse in board planning sessions and only comes alive to finger point when the cameras are rolling! While the former board did not do everything right, it sure beats what Mr. Lacey has proven he can do, i.e., NOTHING but complain!
By deb
September 7, 2008 5:45 AM | Link to this
The school days last year were shortened because of the loss of art and music. Teachers lost their planning time during the school day(which was held during the time the students were at art or music.) However, their work day did not shorten, leaving the planning time to be after the students left. In many buildings, that meant teachers were with students for the entire day, leaving not even an opportunity to go to the restroom or meet with parents during the school day.
By Joe Lacey
September 7, 2008 2:25 AM | Link to this
Last year’s cuts went a lot further than music, art and gym. Teachers were cut to the point of increasing class sizes making teaching and learning more difficult.
By Mskiles314
September 6, 2008 9:59 PM | Link to this
This is an excellent analysis Scott. I’d ask about one extra thing, extra curricular activities. Are they still mostly gone, and has that siphoned kids from DPS to adjacent districts. I’m not just talking sports either but other ECs. Also, I’m interested to know how that no planning period thing worked. I think I’d support that to give departments common planning times.