School board delays restructuring

By Andrea J. Cook, Journal staff | Friday, April 20, 2007

Previous Page

Share

• del.icio.us
• Digg
• NewsVine
• Fark

Print

Email

RAPID CITY — A division Thursday night on the Rapid City School Board surfaced during discussions about a new management plan for the school district.

An attempt by board member Sheryl Kirkeby to force the reorganization of the district’s top-level administrative positions failed by a 3-4 vote. Kirkeby had support from board president Margie Rosario and Leah Lutheran but was overruled by Eric Abrahamson, Doug Kinniburgh, Arnie Laubach and Daphne Richards-Cook.

Abrahamson said there is disagreement among the board members about “the facts and the past history” that led up to the decision to move ahead with the management plant.

“One of the problems and the challenges is getting clarity about when decisions are being made,” he said. “I hope we can get more clarification about moving forward.”

After the vote, the board agreed to set a study session as soon as possible to continue the debate about the new management plan — but not without a stern lecture from Rosario that all board members should arrive on time and attend the session.

Rosario’s comments were aimed at Richards-Cook, who said she had not attended a meeting in which the new management plan was reviewed by Technology and Innovation in Education, the group commissioned to conduct a management audit.

The new management structure recommends creating a new position of assistant superintendent of student achievement, who would report to the superintendent.

That assistant superintendent would oversee a team of four directors and the district’s community partnership facilitator focused on student learning, Those directors are: Director of Curriculum, Assessment, Instruction and The Academically Gifted Services; Director of Federal Programs and Indian Education Services; Director of Staff Development Services; and Director of Education and Student Related Services.

The school district’s principals would also report to the assistant superintendent of student achievement.

The rest of the central administrative team would be collectively focused on Work Force Development. That team would include an assistant superintendent of Human Resources and three directors: finance and budget; technology services; and support services. Each would report directly to the superintendent.

The dissention on the board surfaced after a presentation by a team involved in a study of American Indian education in the Rapid City School District emphasized the importance of having a director of Indian education in a cabinet-level position — a position that would be replaced with a mid-level directorship under the new plan.

“Don’t do this to our kids. We deserve better,” pleaded Keely Clark, a parent who served on a committee that has spent months looking at ways to reach more American Indian students and keep them in school until graduation.

For the past several months, several committees have been reviewing the district’s Indian education program to find with better ways to serveIndian students, according to Clark Richardson, a committee member and an assistant principal at the Ninth Grade Academy.

Richardson said his committee worked without being aware that Technology and Innovation in Education was working on a management plan.

Richards-Cook wanted to know if TIE’s plan provides for a director of Indian education at the cabinet level.

Eric Abrahamson said he also had questions about what would happen with the office of Indian education.

Unanswered questions have been one of the difficulties with the process of considering the new management structure, Abrahamson said.

Superintendent Peter Wharton responded, saying that TIE’s recommendation creating a director of federal programs/Indian education did not preclude or eliminate the position. “There could be an Indian coordinator position; that’s the board’s prerogative,” he said.

Clark reminded the board that Indian students bring a significant amount of federal money into the school district and that 14 percent of the district’s students are Indian.

Indian education is more than managing a federal grant, Clark said.

“Do what’s best for our kids,” she said.

Although Kirkeby’s motion did include the option of a cabinet-level director of Indian education, four board members apparently had enough doubt about the direction the management plan would take the district to stop its adoption.

“It’s clear form this discussion that there are a number of misunderstandings, and we have not reached clarity,” Abrahamson said.

Abrahamson asked for special study session to discuss whether or not to proceed with the management plan. The date of that session was not agreed upon by press time.

Contact Andrea Cook at 394-8423 or andrea.cook@rapidcityjournal.com