Polk emails leave gaps, offer glimpses

When I started digging last week into hundreds of Cedar Rapids school district emails related to the Polk Elementary School closure saga, there was one big question I hoped to answer.

Why Polk? Not, why close a school, but why close this school specifically? Unfortunately, the pile of messages obtained by The Gazette through a Freedom of Information Act request doesn't tell me.

So the “why” remains fuzzy, but we may now know the “when.”

On Aug. 25, Robert Schwartz, a district consultant working with the district's Enrollment Committee, sent an email to district officials detailing the first “supposal” for elementary closures flowing from committee discussions on Aug. 23. The list included Monroe, Garfield, Cleveland and making Grant a K-5 school.

The committee, appointed by Superintendent Dave Benson, had just begun four months of closed-door deliberations on possible closures and boundary changes.

Minutes later on Aug. 25, at 3:04 p.m., Benson responded: “Rob. Per our phone call let's see if we can close Garfield and Polk. Thanks, Dave.”

Benson followed up 14 minutes later in a message to Schwartz and others involved in the process. “All: I have asked Rob to look into an additional idea of closing Polk along with the others.”

Beginning of the end?

There's no explanation of why Benson wanted to add Polk. The district says it was simply “part of the exploration process.” But if Polk's end has a beginning, it looks like this is it.

It's also the beginning of the district's efforts to shape public perceptions.

The next day, Aug. 26, Benson emails school board members to let them know that the prospect for elementary closures will go public Sept. 6: “The enrollment study committee will roll out the first supposal on Tuesday, Sept. 6. Several elementary schools will be listed for possible closure and redistricting. This act may raise community concern. These supposals do not include decisions or recommendations ... If patrons contact you, please let them know we are a long way from recommendations and that further public participation is built into the process.”

But school board President John Laverty questions the timing. “Wondering out loud here, but do you foresee any negative repercussions from announcing the Enrollment Study ‘supposal' the week prior to the school board election vote?” wrote Laverty, who was on the ballot Sept. 13.

There is no email addressing Laverty's thoughts. There is also no news story addressing the possibility of a Polk closure in The Gazette's archives until Dec. 1. The emails don't explain that gap.

And that's not all they don't fully explain. The messages clearly represent only a limited slice of the countless offline conversations, discussions and debates that likely took place behind the scenes surrounding the closure issue. But even these incomplete electronic brush strokes paint some interesting pictures.

Public relations

If you look at this six-month process as an assembly line, Polk's closure is the most important final product it produced, shutting down an academically successful school with more than 200 kids in a low-income core neighborhood. But, judging by these emails, the district spent considerably more time on that product's packaging than on efforts to carefully explain the specific necessity for its manufacture. The emphasis was on answering critics, handling the media and putting out potential public relations fires.

“I am quite ticked off by the involvement of the Zach Johnson folks/United Way in this,” wrote district Community Relations Supervisor Marcia Hughes to Benson on Nov. 3, as media attention on the prospect of closing Harrison Elementary ramped up and city leaders weighed in. The Zach Johnson Foundation sponsors the Kids on Course program at Harrison and its director, Ruth White, was an outspoken opponent of closure.

If there are more media inquires, Hughes tells Benson to “re-stress the process without noting any additional building closure.”

“We should also talk about possible talking points for committee members at this point.” Hughes writes, speculating that more media may show up at the next closed Enrollment Committee meeting. “We'll need a ‘corral' for them so they don't intimidate committee members.”

Otherwise they might roam.

“I know we don't want him roaming through the building and can put that off with a question for more information about why/what … if so, perhaps it is only approved to happen outside of school day hours (so not to be disruptive) and then only with Mary Ellen (Maske) and Lisa (TeBockhorst) as guides,” Hughes wrote Feb. 28 about my own request to tour Polk. I never did get to roam, or tour, the building. (My additions to the email are in bold.)

Polk rally put off

In late November, as rumblings about Polk's future spread, there was a flurry of administrative concern about Polk staff and volunteers rallying for its survival at the school itself. Some school staff sought to mobilize before the closure decision was “set in stone.” They planed to hold a We Love Polk School Rally on Nov. 30, and a lunch volunteer from the community tried to mount a petition drive in the building.

“Mary Ellen: FYI, Again, seems like using district resources to promote the save Polk agenda,” Benson writes to district Executive Administrator Mary Ellen Maske about the planned rally.

“The fire has been put out,” Maske later writes to Benson about the petition drive. “Also, the Rally that was scheduled at Polk tomorrow has been postponed.”

By the end of November, as the Harrison debate swirls, it appears Benson is worried about negative publicity. “I really do not want to become the ‘scape goat' for slow residential flood recovery on the west side,” Benson writes to school board members. “Board members should remember that as a District we are in a relatively good financial position and do not need to take immediate action on the school closure and boundary issues.”

During much of this saga, Laverty appears to be acting less as the independent leader of an elected governing board aggressively questioning the administration's aims and more as a member of the administration team. Laverty is involved in crafting district responses and messaging about the process.

On Nov. 30, Laverty sends Benson an email about an upcoming event he's been invited to attend.

“Dave - There are some questions I'm asked to respond to at Friday's Leadership for Five Seasons Education Day related to District issues (see attached). Would you or others (Marcia?) like to provide me with talking points before Friday? I think I'm up to speed on most of these issues, but would hate to miss something.”

Laverty is also scheduled to tour Harrison, but Benson recommends he wait until the school's fate becomes clear. “No use you being in the cross hairs until it's time,” Benson writes.

Second thoughts

But on Jan. 13, there is an eye-catching moment when Laverty has second thoughts about Polk.

“It's obvious there's a ‘good thing' going on at Polk and I know a few board members now have told me they are having a hard time figuring out how the committee decided on Polk to close,” Laverty writes to Benson. “I'd strongly suggest you bring Garfield back in play as an option … and float the idea of the potential to combine as a couple of schools on east and west sides as a new ‘21st Century' facilities that couldn't be construed as ‘mega schools.' I also think we need a two-phase approach which is becoming clear with various comments: (1 change boundaries, close Monroe, adjust Grant/Wilson this coming year; and 2) consider closing other elementaries and or combining and building new in two years (or more).”

“OK, good to know. We need to know where BOE members are lining up,” Benson answers, without further comment on Laverty's thoughts.

On March 8, board member Gary Anhalt, who will be the only “no” vote on Polk closure four days later, expresses similar misgivings to Laverty:

“My concern is the loss of a very effective elementary school particularly with low-income and minority families. I have worked with the groups trying to close the achievement gap at McKinley and many of the things that have been discussed are already in place at Polk and they are showing results.”

By then, Laverty's line is much different:

“The bottom line on closing schools is district finances. It's one of the board's primary responsibilities along with policy and advocacy. It's been made clear to us by the administration that if we don't cut expenses now, we will put ourselves in a position of making more drastic cuts, likely to staff, later.”

Change in direction

At some point during this saga, a process that was once all about building capacity and conditions was transformed into one aimed mostly at saving money to stabilize general fund reserves. Benson's “relatively good financial position” in December became a district “against the wall” financially, as Laverty wrote in a February op-ed.

What changed? Perhaps when Benson began to pivot away from closing Harrison, with its hefty repair costs and broad capacity gap, it had to change. Maybe when the district's expensive new Education Leadership and Support Center became an issue in the debate, it was much more difficult for the district to point to the declining condition of its school buildings as a reason to close some.

Who knows? And you're not going to find the answer in these emails.

But we do get a glimpse at why academic performance wasn't a factor in the closure decision.

“Academic performance was not a criteria considered and in my opinion should not be considered,” Benson wrote to the board Jan. 13. “Ranking schools by single test measures is inappropriate when the US Department of Education does it and such ranking should be avoided by local districts. Low-performing schools typically receive lots of extra help and that is the case with Polk.”

Still, as inappropriate as they may be, the feds don't typically close schools that work their way off the Schools in Need of Assistance list, as Polk did. And how appropriate is it to provide “lots of extra help,” make considerable progress and then close the school?

Also seen as inappropriate were calls for a more open process.

“Overall, The Gazette coverage has been factual though Todd Dorman will not give up on the idea that everything I do should be open to the public. Oh well, we should assume this position from an editorial writer,” Benson wrote to the board on Jan. 13.

But it's not just pesky hacks. On March 13, the day after the board voted to close Polk, an enrichment coordinator at the school, Amy Anderson, emailed Mary Gannon, an attorney with the Iowa Association of School Boards, an organization that's had its own transparency issues.

“On Monday, our board voted to close a high-performing, but low-income school based solely on a facilities and enrollment study that was a topic of a series of closed-door meetings by a board appointed committee. Is this legal?” Anderson wrote.

“Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's a good idea.” Gannon responded.

Why this matters

So why dredge this up? It's over and done, right? Move on.

Not exactly. In a district faced with enrollment declines as far as the eye can see, the prospect for more school closures hangs on the horizon. And I'd like it to be far different next time. That means examining and understanding what happened this time.

I'd like to see the school board step up, assert its independence, and take the lead in a process next time, rather than basically ceding nearly all of the decision making authority to the administration. I'd like to see a process that gives broad community concerns at least as much weight as the superintendent's recommendations.

I think the community, parents and taxpayers deserve a process that does more to keep them informed than it does to keep up appearances. And the best way to do that is scrap all the window dressing in favor of pulling back the curtains to let the sun shine on the entire process, from day one. Deliberations on an issue with the potential to affect hundreds of families should not be conducted in meetings closed to the public.

And most of all, I'd like to see a process with clear educational objectives that benefit the district and its students beyond reducing unused space or building a slightly larger budget reserve. All of this tumult and heartache should be for something bigger, something bolder.

It should be a process that doesn't leave a single important “why” unanswered.