I used my five minutes during the Public Comment portion of the meeting to ask about the study of test scores that Tim Kassel has been trying to get done. Between the May and June meeting, a story appeared in the Daily Herald saying that the district had decided to go ahead with the study. I asked who made the decision to go ahead with the study, and when then decision was made.
I asked this in the wake of my question at last month’s meeting about how residents can contact the members of the board, and where one would find this information. I was told that the only way for residents to contact board members with questions or concerns is to come to the board meeting and address the board during Public Comment, where each resident who wishes to speak will be given five minutes. The reason, I was told, was because the board did not discuss district business outside of board meetings.
So the timing of the Daily Herald article, published two weeks after the May board meeting caught my eye.
If the board decided to go ahead with the study outside of the board meeting, if district business was discussed outside of an open board meeting, then why is it we, as residents, can’t contact members with questions or concerns outside of board meetings?
Dr. Jackie Krause, who is now Superintendent, tried to answer the question by saying it was a joint decision between the board and the administration. But then, I wondered, how could the board be involved in a joint decision outside of a board meeting if they did not discuss district business outside of board meetings? However, if the board is able to make joint decisions outside of board meetings, then why does a resident, who the board is supposed to represent, have to wait until a board meeting to have his or her voice heard?
Dr. Krause tried again, saying the administration made the decision after consulting with the board. Again, by the board’s own rules, wouldn’t that consultation have to take place at a board meeting?
Board member Tom Mollet referenced a line in the minutes from the May board meeting, which read that the board made the decision to go ahead with the study. I, too, noticed that line before the meeting, but I didn’t remember any such decision being made during the meeting. I reviewed my notes from that meeting, and recalled that the discussion of the study was halted by President Paula Zasadil, citing the five-minute time limit, before such a decision was reached. I made note of this to Tom.
Dr. Mahaffy said that the decision was made by the administration.
When my five minutes were up, Tim Kassel spoke to the board. He wanted to know, now that the announcement had been made to go forward with the study of the test scores, how the study will be conducted. He went on to say that his research indicates that the test score data, without any identifying information tying a score to a student, could be released by the district. With that in mind, he submitted two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the board for the release of the test scores, without any information that would identify a student’s individual scores.
He then asked the audience, many of whom attended the board meeting in response to an invitation by Tim, to raise their hands if they support the study being done. Eight members of the audience, nearly all of the people in the audience, raised their hands in support of the study. Tim also invited the members of the School Board to raise their hands in support, but none did. By law, the district had to respond to the request in seven days. (The board did respond within the seven day limit to request another seven days, so as to have the appropriate personnel examine the records and make a determination as to whether or not they are exempt from disclosure; this is also allowed by the FOIA law.)
After Tim submitted his requests to the Board, Dr. Krause said that she spoke with the attorney for the Board, and he stated that test scores would not fall under the information available from a FOIA request, because they are part of a student’s record. He noted a case where the Chicago Tribune sought access to a school district’s test scores, and was denied.
Dr. Krause said she then asked the district attorney what his response would be if the question were “May we release the test scores”, instead of “We must release the test scores”. She said that the District 3 attorney cited FERPA and ISSRA as privacy concerns, and said that, if one student’s test scores could be determined from the data released, it would be a violation of these laws. He added that, since District 3 is a small school district, the risk of a student being identified from the test score data would be greater than if the request were made in a larger school district.
Dr. Krause then cited some examples where she said a student’s identity could be ascertained:
- If one student from a class were held back the next school year.
- If one student were added to a class during the school year.
- If one student’s parents blocked the release of his or her test scores for participation in the study in a subsequent year
Dr. Krause commented that she didn’t want to make enemies of the community on her first night as Superintendent.
Dr. Mahaffy said that anytime the district takes on projects, they look to the community to participate. He said that he doesn’t want to feel like he’s doing this study specifically for Mr. Kassel, but he’d like to feel as though he can call Mr. Kassel with questions as the study takes place.
Tim Kassel responded that the district can call him.
Dr. Mahaffy continued, saying if the district can have improvement by studying this data, then he wants to do it. He said that he talked with the Reading Specialist and said that, in light of what may be found from this study, some changes may need to be made to the Reading program. He said that he sees Mr. Kassel as a concerned parent, and wants to respond to him.
Mr. Kassel responded by saying that he also spoke with the District 3 attorney and researched the Tribune case. He found that the Chicago Tribune lost its court case because it asked for personal information of the students, not just test scores. He said that he’d be happy to help the district with the study, but he’s a little skeptical of what he sees as stonewalling from the district on releasing the test scores. He did not rescind his FOIA requests.
Board member Pat Hughes said at the meeting that he clarified with Mr. Kassel that both he and Dr. Krause spoke with the same attorney in gathering their information.
Dr. Krause added that the District 3 attorney advised that test scores were exempt from FOIA requests, but that there was some middle ground in this issue.
Board member Steve Knar noted that several people came into the meeting after it started, and were unable to sign in to address the board. He asked if any of the these people would like to address the board. (Kudos to Steve Knar!)
It was asked if there was some kind of forum for people to ask questions about the study. Dr. Mahaffy said that questions could be e-mailed to him at mahaffyt@dist3.org. (I would also suggest to any readers of this item, that you can also discuss the study amongst other residents in the Partnership for Schools e-mail group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dist3_PartnershipForSchools/).
Mary Lu Seidel commented that she also has a child who is a slow reader who is going into the 7th grade and is still struggling in reading. She said that she prays that this study is done swiftly, and that action will be taken soon.
She also said that she would like the district to fully disclose how students are tracked and assessed during their academic careers in District 3. She also thanked Board Member Knar for extending the Public Comment portion of the meeting, as she was delayed by two trains coming to the meeting and would have been left out of the meeting otherwise. She asked that the school board consider opening the meetings further in the future.
