Rapid City school board members are concerned they haven't seen timely results from the education firm they hired two years ago to conduct a management study.

The board commissioned Technology & Innovation in Education of Rapid City to conduct a leadership and management study of the way the district is organized.

The analysis firm began a five-phase plan in June 2006, and in a school-board work session Tuesday at the firm's offices, the agency laid out its progress to school board members that included 45 meetings, interviews and presentations it has given in the past year and a half.

The purpose of the study is to determine whether the Rapid City school district's upper-level administration and building-level leadership structures are efficient, whether they should be restructured, and if so, how.

School board member Eric Abrahamson said he was frustrated because of a lack of communication between the board and the company. He also said he was more interested in the results of the company's work and not the process.

"We need to know what you're learning and less of the chronology," he said. "We have information on the structure, but there (isn't) enough meat for how you got to those conclusions."

Board president Sheryl Kirkeby agreed.

"You guys are doing work, but we don't know what you're doing," she said. "We're questioning if we're getting our bang for the buck."

The firm was initially contracted for 30 days of work at $15,000. Another week of work was added for $3,000, and a second contract was added for 2007 for 49 days of work at $26,681. Two company employees, Gloria Steele and Marylou McGirr, who were also present at the meeting, have been splitting the allotted hours to conduct the interviews and compile the information.

Jim Parry, who is the director of Technology & Innovation in Education and is overseeing the audit, said they are working on limited resources for the project. More importantly, he said, they want to give the board quality recommendations, and it will take time and a thorough look at the district's structure. He said his firm has the responsibility of making recommendations based on what the direct correlation is between the district's resources and student achievement, which is complex.

"When we boil it down and make those recommendations, we want to be credible," he said. "We could make recommendations today, but based on what? What we want to bring to you is something you can stand on."

McGirr reminded the board that the original plan was for the work to be completed by June 2008, and the agency is still working under that assumption.

Kirkeby said she knows they are working hard, but the board is not seeing results they can do anything with now.

"I don't understand what value we're getting from the work you've done," she said.

Parry said they are working with the time they have been contracted for.

"We've subsidized this with as many hours as we can," Parry said. "We've exhausted all the days that we've set aside for this work. … We're delivering a tremendous value, and if it feels like we're not, we need to communicate with you better."

Parry said as they have gotten deeper into the work, the scope of the project has broadened.

"Your circumstances have changed, and our awareness of the district has changed. … Are we on the same page now?" he asked.

Technology & Innovation in Education was scheduled to update the board on its work at the Feb. 21 board meeting, but Abrahamson said a regularly scheduled board meeting is not the best time for that kind of presentation. He suggested a separate meeting devoted entirely to the project would be more appropriate because it provides a forum for more discussion instead a one-way presentation.

"We get more value out of (your) time," he said.

Superintendent Peter Wharton said he looks forward to more discussion between the board and the analysis team.

"Closure and benefits can occur when there's dialogue," he said.

Contact Kayla Gahagan at 394-8410 or kayla.gahagan@rapidcityjournal.com