Remember Public Education When You Vote

Have you heard? We have an election coming up next week. If you haven't, then you are probably one of the lucky ones who hasn't been inundated with text messages. I checked the spam filter on my phone and counted 36 text messages from last Thursday alone reminding me to vote or asking for money. 

Now, while the focus is at the federal level and on who the next president will be, it is paramount that we consider the down ballot races as well. What happens at the federal level is important, but what happens at the local level is likely to have a greater impact on your day to day lives. 

As you contemplate all of these contests, I would encourage you to reflect on the work of the state legislature over the last two years. Consider the issues they have tackled, and those they have not. Do they match your value system? Do they not? Then vote accordingly. For me, it is important that we have elected officials that understand and value public education. And by the way, saying so and doing so are two very different things. Based on the actions of our legislature over these last two years, some of the policy decisions that have been made makes me question the value placed on public education.

In the past, when the legislature was in session I carved out time in my schedule to make the trek to Des Moines and meet with our lawmakers. I felt that it was my duty as a public school superintendent to share information that I believed was helpful when shaping policy. I wanted them to understand the pros and cons of their proposals, help make them better, and in some cases advocate for the legislation not to move forward. It used to be time well spent and impactful. I don't do much of that anymore. Quite frankly I don't think they are interested in what I have to say because my advocacy (and most of my colleagues) is ineffective and fails to resonate.

To be honest over the last several years, I have not looked forward to the legislative session and find it to be quite stressful. What once was viewed as an opportunity to improve our public schools has now become a white knuckled ride, waking up each day and wondering: What are they going to do to us next?

Even so, when I head for the ballot box there are a few things that are top of mind, particularly when considering education policy in Iowa.

First, and most important is a call to protect our AEA system. You may recall sweeping legislation that was enacted last year which fundamentally changed the operational posture of the AEA. It mandates a mission that is more centered around special education compliance. This is a departure from the original charter of the organization, removing some of the educational and media services that local school districts had come to rely on over the years. It hastened a departure of staff and made efforts to recruit replacement staff challenging. Help was only a phone call away. Granted, that same help is [still] now only a phone call away: for a fee. This was a significant piece of legislation, one that we would have been wise to study and debate more thoughtfully prior to enactment. We are just at the starting gate of fully understanding the consequences of this massive overall of the statewide Area Education Agencies, and prior to any further changes we must be thoughtful. In every way, this legislation has made work in local school districts, particularly those in small rural communities more difficult and costly. 

I worry about adequate and timely supplemental state aid. To remind my readers, supplemental state aid, or SSA, is the percentage by which the state cost per pupil grows annually. It is required to be settled within 30 days of the beginning of the legislative session. Our wish is that it is set timely, and that it is adequate. Our legislature does not have a good track record. The growth rate has hovered around 2% for more than a decade and is rarely set on time. Very few costs in a school budget are growing at 2% or less per annum. To meet these constraints, many school districts delay curriculum acquisitions, understaff or eliminate supplementary programs, or suppress employee wages; creating shortages throughout the industry. Now to the legislature's credit, they worked to increase teacher wages and have set in motion a plan that increases the base rate for teachers to $47,500 for the current school year and $50,000 for the next school year. I applaud this decision! It was an incredibly heavy lift and took a lot of time during the last legislative session, which unfortunately further delayed setting the SSA rate. However, I would argue that had SSA not been artificially depressed over the last decade, we wouldn't have been in a position where such a huge infusion of capital all at once would have even been necessary.

The question now is whether or not this is sustainable. It may have been an easy 'yes' had this same legislature not implemented an ESA program. Couched under this idea of 'school choice', in the first year of enactment more than 60% of the funds went to families that were already attending nonpublic schools. At the same time, private schools are increasing tuition by thousands of dollars to not only gobble up the entire amount of the ESAs, but going even further and putting their programs out of reach for the very students ESAs were supposedly targeted. School choice? Yes: For the school. Let's not also forget, this was set up as a standing appropriation, meaning the skies the limit. Whatever it costs, the state picks up the tab. So far, it has cost far more than originally anticipated and the contract with the out of state company hired to manage the program has more than doubled. Hundreds of millions of dollars fed into a system with little accountability, that instead could have been used to set SSA at a more appropriate and reasonable rate. 

Election day is November 5th. Don't forget to vote!

Annual Report on Student Progress 2023-2024

I am pleased to present to you this annual report on student progress for the 2023-2024 academic year. This report should not be confused with the Iowa School Performance Profile, which will be announced later on this fall. The data included in this report relies heavily on the Iowa Statewide Assessment of Student Progress, or ISASP, which is administered annually to students in grades 3-11 each spring. The battery includes tests in Math, Reading, Language/Writing, and Science. Students in the aforementioned grade levels are administered single tests in each of the content areas described above with the average student taking between 60 and 75 minutes to complete each test. 

These tests have been designed and developed by Iowa Testing Programs at the University of Iowa and are aligned with the Iowa Core Academic Standards. The theory holds that, if classroom instruction is aligned to these standards in both content and rigor, students should be well prepared for the administration of the test. At the same time though, it is important for the consumer of this report to understand that this is one test, given on one day. This is a singular data point among many that are collected throughout the course of the school year. As such, it would not be reasonable to use this instrument to definitively conclude the overall effectiveness of the academic program. There are many factors that may impact a students' performance, which is why it is important to triangulate the results of this report with other assessments that are administered throughout the course of the school year. In our analysis, we try to answer the question why; and look for patterns across broad spectrums of students to reach conclusions. For example if a particular subset of questions garners an incorrect response over multiple years, it may suggest a misalignment of instruction, or perhaps that particular test item had not been introduced at the time the test was administered. 

This report considers our results and compares them to a statewide benchmark. In most cases, as this report illustrates, students in the Hudson Community School District perform above this statewide benchmark. Additionally, the data is disaggregated by subgroup. However, unless the sample size is greater than 40 students, it is not included. We do this to prevent the identification of students who may belong to a particular subgroup. This is why you will notice the primary subgroups by grade level are male/female. Where proficiency by attendance center is discussed beginning on page 8, this is done in an effort to provide sample sizes large enough to illustrate the differences in our low SES group and those students receiving specially designed instruction, or special education. Our low SES group is defined as those who are on free and reduced lunches. When one hears educational professionals or the Iowa Department of Education discuss an achievement gap, this is precisely what we are referring to. For example, in grades 3-6, students who do not belong to the low SES or special education subgroups have a proficiency rates of 89.25%, whereas those in the low SES have a 61.11% proficiency and those in special programs have a 33.33% proficiency. There is ample scholarly research hypothesizing the reasons for these results, however the solutions to close that gap must include a community effort that includes a strong partnership between all stakeholders. 

As you evaluate the contents of this report, you will notice that we use the terms 'proficiency' and 'growth' throughout. A student who is proficient indicates they have adequate knowledge, skills and abilities that meet the requirements for the grade level which they have been tested. Growth on the other hand, is a three digit number that is best contextualized by evaluating it over time. For example on page 3 of the report, you can see not only how a particular grade level performed on a test, but you can measure that number against the three digit number that represents the floor of proficiency and see how that cohort group performs over time. At the same time, one can evaluate how a particular grade level performs over multiple years and understand how the strength of instruction compares against multiple grade levels of students. 

Finally, page 9 of the report provides us with outcomes for students following high school, or their postsecondary success. A key indicator of this can be found in the table on page 9. The top row indicates the percentage of graduates who intend to pursue postsecondary training or education. You will note that 95.6% of the Class of 2020 indicated that intent. Of that, 74.5% did in fact enroll within one year, with 70.2% persisting a second year. The table at bottom ranks postsecondary success and indicates that the district exceeds the same benchmark in all areas with the exception of postsecondary or advanced coursework. Hudson was at 73.33 compared to a statewide mark of 75.82. This is one of the reasons the district has been focused on broadening course offerings, particularly those designed to prepare students for life after high school. 

The results contained in this report are most useful when viewed holistically with other assessment tools and results used by the school district. Further, they should not be used to determine the outcomes of any individual student. If you have questions about your child's performance on the ISASP or any other academic assessment, please contact the building principal. 

Counterbalancing Residential and Open Enrollment

Each October 1, school districts in Iowa begin the process of certifying enrollment with the state. In it's most basic form, we are counting all the residents of our district that are attending school either here or elsewhere. Whether they are open enrolled out, and if so where. If they are in a private school. Home school. If they are dually enrolled. If they belong to another school district but attend our school district under open enrollment. While this work begins on October 1, it doesn't truly finish until October 15th when we certify the results. This includes reconciling our records and data with all the other school districts that may have Hudson students attending elsewhere, or students from other districts attending here at Hudson. If it sounds complicated, it is. 

When considering preschool through twelfth grade enrollment, the district is currently serving 932 students. Factoring in dual enrolled and part time students, enrollment tops 938. However, for the purposes of this summary our focus will be on K-12 full time students.  

Certified enrollment is up approximately 52 students from last year. Certified enrollment in Iowa public school districts is the sum total of resident students living in the school district. The basic calculation is the number of resident students attending in the local district, plus the number of resident students attending another public-school district. The BEDS count, on the other hand considers students who are served in the school district. The basic calculation in this case, is resident students attending our school district, plus those who are open enrolled into Hudson. Our data shows a net increase of 34.65 students over last year from 841.99 to 876.64, or a 4.11% enrollment increase. Our official numbers track higher than projected, which suggested K-12 enrollment this year of 842. 

The number of students open enrolling out of Hudson has also increased from 66 to 69 with just over half choosing Cedar Falls (36). The second spot belongs to Gladbrook-Reinbeck, with (10) Hudson residents attending that district, followed by (9) in Waterloo. The number of students open enrolling into online academies is another popular option, with (8) students spread over (3) schools. There are 170 students open enrolling into Hudson, compared to 186 from a year ago. Waterloo continues to lead, with (114) students open enrolling into Hudson, down from (130) a year ago. Our data suggests (5) students taking advantage of the ESA program, with no accurate comparability number from a year ago. The primary takeaway is that a net positive of 100 students (those open enrolled in minus those open enrolled out) is a very good sign for the district.  

We had 39 students who were enrolled last year but have subsequently transferred out or moved to another school district. This compares to 32 students who moved out last year and would suggest a more transient population of learners.  

Our second-grade class remains the largest at (87) students, compared to (87) one year ago. This (4) section grade level can be attributed to the influx of open enrolled students from two years ago. At this time, the district operates four sections of grade K-2 and anticipates the four-section grade level pattern to continue matriculating across the district. Even so, a deliberate decision has been made to cap open enrollment. This is being done purposefully in order to accommodate the increase in resident ‘attending’ students. The strategy being employed will be to counterbalance residential enrollment with open enrollment. As residential enrollment increases, open enrollment will decrease; which is illustrated in our current enrollment data. This is an important and often overlooked fact when considering the growth that Hudson is experiencing. Think about this: we have 49 more residents attending Hudson school this year, while at the same time 14 less open enrolled. You should anticipate the open enrollment figure will continue to decline as the residential number climbs. 

Enrollment projections are calculated based on a cohort methodology that uses a five-year rolling average to determine kindergarten size. Over the last 5 years, the kindergarten has averaged 70 students; while in the last 10 years it has averaged 62.8. Based on both residential enrollment growth coupled with open enrollment, a projection of 70 seems to be right, particularly since open enrollment from Waterloo is not anticipated to drop off precipitously in the short term. With this methodology, estimates from prior years are left static since there is no algorithm to accurately predict transfers in or out of the district. If these projections were come to fruition, we will reach our high-water mark of 920 in 2029-2030. Previous attempts have been made to account for residential growth, and assuming 1.9 children per household evenly distributed could push K-12 enrollment into the mid-950 range by 2028-2029. However, I would exercise extreme caution when making this assumption and at the same time understand potential growth could be significant. 

If you have any questions about our enrollment trend, please feel free to reach out to me. A full copy of this report can be accessed from our website.

Opportunities to Become Involved Are Plentiful

A friend who works at a church recently told me that roughly 10% of any given congregation volunteers to help with church activities. That's not just his church, but all churches. My little brother, who is a Pastor working on a church plant project in Mason City would agree. I had a chance to visit him last weekend and see the work that is going into his church renovation project. The task before him and his small flock is daunting, but they are determined and I am certain they'll meet their deadline. 

I'm not here to talk with you today about my brother's church. However, I am here to talk with you about volunteering, squaring that with school and parental involvement. Just like those church volunteers, whenever a call goes out, we can count on that same trusty group of about 10% to step up and lend a hand. We are lucky to have them. And if you are one of those who consistently answers the bell, thank you! If you are not, I'd encourage you to get involved. There is a very strong correlation between academic success and parental involvement in schools. But as valid as that statement is, it isn't my entire point. In our most recent needs assessment survey, when asked the question, 'What needs to change', the number one response from our parent group was 'parental involvement'. 

Granted, these types of survey instruments must be taken with a grain of salt. One has to consider the sample size of the respondents and their interpretation of the question. If possible, they should be triangulated with other data sources. My supposition is two-fold when considering interpretation of the question. First, I think some of this may come from a belief that parents don't feel their voices are always heard in matters dealing with school governance. This is a fair criticism. But at the same time, I think we can probably all agree that it is challenging to be fully engaged in governance when you don't have all the information needed to make that decision. Consider last weeks discussion about threat assessments and FERPA implications as a case in point. Even so, we take the feedback seriously and really do want to hear from you. So for you, if parental involvement is as simple as having a voice at the table, we are sincere when we ask your opinion on items of importance and policy discussion. Take for example our current discussion on the cell phone policy. As the school board considers changes to this policy, we really do want to here from you. Our parent and community notification list reaches 718 inboxes. At the writing of this column, we have heard from roughly 5% of our constituency on this issue. These type of inquiries (or surveys if you will) are small, low risk requests for input and feedback. It is a way for you to become involved without a whole lot of risk or effort. Heck, you can even do it from your car when waiting to pick up your kids at the end of the day. But please, don't conflate your input into ensuring the result you are advocating for. Yes, we are a small school. Even so, I can assure you that whenever there are potentially hundreds of respondents you can anticipate a very diverse set of opinions. All of which have merit and value. It is from the sum of all these parts a decision can be made. 

I promised a two-fold answer when considering parental involvement. If the first is that parents don't feel their voices are heard, then in my view, the second is that they are unaware of the opportunities for involvement that are available. We have opportunities available that fit virtually any level of interest or expertise. Perhaps the most common is the PTO organization. Their work is focused on supporting the teachers and students served in the elementary school. While you may think their work is centered on fundraising, that is far from a full and accurate picture. This group helps organize special days for students and teachers alike. They assist with book fairs, back to school night, and are a key consultancy group for our elementary school. Not for you? Well, if your children are a bit older and beginning to become involved in extra-curricular activities, then perhaps one of our booster clubs is the right fit for you. Our Hudson Booster Club is focused primarily on our athletic program, where our Hudson Music and Theater Boosters are focused on fine arts. Again, I would encourage you to look beyond the fundraising efforts of these groups. While those are no doubt important components, the support these organizations provide extends far beyond simply raising money. They are great sounding boards for the directors, coaches, and teachers that rely on them. Acting as close counselors and advisors; program development, expansion, and the genesis of those ideas often begins with these groups. Some of you may be more interested in the future, or are more interested in policy development. A great place to start would be the School Improvement Advisory Committee or SIAC. While this group only meets a handful of time a year, it is instrumental in the development of our strategic plan, and takes seriously their responsibility to dig deep into our student achievement data to uncover trends and make recommendations for school improvement. I'll also add that our SIAC group served as the launching pad for our task force on the high school, which encompassed the largest group of community stakeholders and volunteers in well over a decade. The work of this group resulted in a recommendation that is now close to coming to fruition: the high school expansion. Finally, the pinnacle of involvement would be election to the school board. As you know, the school board sets the direction and formulates the policy and procedures that govern the entire school district. 

These are but a few examples of the numerous, and perhaps most highly visible committees and commissions that afford you, our parents the opportunity to become involved in your child's education. If you see something that piques your interest, I encourage you to reach out. If you don't see anything that fits, give me a call. I'm sure we can find a way turn your expertise into a value added voice of experience for the multitude of projects or issues that we encounter in our school. And at a minimum, you are encouraged to give us your opinion. That low hanging fruit that comes in the form of our quick surveys? We sincerely want to know how you feel. 

Threat Assessment and FERPA Implications

During the 2023 legislative session, the Iowa General Assembly passed a law requiring school districts to develop policies outlining the procedures a school will follow when disciplining students who make threats of violence or cause acts of violence. Our local policy was adopted by the board on November 15, 2023; not quite one year ago. In January of 2024, administrative regulation 503.8R1 was adopted, which defines the severity of the threat and provides guidance for how discipline may be imposed depending on the nature of the threat.

Additionally, a key component of the law [and of our policy] includes a provision for parental notification. This notification is required to be made to the parents of the student who made the threat, and all the parents of the students who were targets of that threat. This notification is required within 24 hours of the threat. Ergo the reason the provisions outlined in those policies were enacted last week. 

As you certainly are aware, last week we had to provide that notice to you on two separate occasions. I am certain when you received that message from the school it created numerous emotional responses. Your anxiety probably increased. Perhaps your palms became sweaty. Maybe you noted an increase in your heart rate. I know this because I had the exact same response. The difference though, is that once the issue was resolved and concluded, I had answers. Whenever these things happen, most of the time you do not. I am sure you have questions. The fact those answers are not forthcoming is probably both unsatisfying and perhaps even unsettling. 

I'm guessing you already know the reason why, but I'll state it again anyway. Any investigative notes, disciplinary sanctions, and the identities of students involved in a disciplinary investigation is confidential as a matter of federal law. Have you all heard of HIPPA, the federal law that makes your health records private? The educational equivalent is known as FERPA. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is a federal law that affords parents the right to have access to their children's education records, the right to seek to have the records amended, and the right to have some control over the disclosure of personally identifiable information from the educational records. In other words, unless a parent or guardian gives permission, those records remain sealed. 

This is precisely why I can't provide you the answers that you may be seeking whenever issues like this arise. But, perhaps I can give you a bit of insight into how these events unfold. I can share with you the protocols that go into effect whenever a threatening report is made similar to what we experienced last week. In some respects, I can give you a peak behind the curtain. An opportunity to see what goes on behind closed doors when these events are happening. 

Immediately the senior administrative cabinet is assembled. Simultaneously, the team is gathering information to determine whether or not a threat is imminent. Where one administrator is interviewing witnesses, another is coordinating with law enforcement. While that is going on, initial contacts are being made to parents of the students who are involved. Another administrator is fielding phone calls. Collectively, between and during all of this, drafts of statements are being prepared and edited while more information is gathered. Everyone in the room maintains a close eye on the clock, because time is not on our side. We have to act, and we have to act quickly. 

This literally occurs within the first moments of the report. Running along both a concurrent and parallel track, an investigation is launched to understand better what the threat was, who made the threat, and who it was directed toward. Our local police department are key partners in this work and we lean heavily on their expertise. All while this is occurring, we are diligently preparing communication to you, our families. While the law affords us a 24 hour window, our goal is to have our initial statement in your hands within 20 minutes. Why? Because while running an investigation that includes many witnesses with a lot of moving parts, it doesn't take long for information to begin to be disseminated that is not accurate. We feel it is important that you have accurate information from us as quickly as possible. Granted, meeting a 20 minute goal is lofty, because it does take a bit of time to understand with clarity exactly what it is we are dealing with. We want to be swift when sharing information with you. We also must be accurate, and it takes time to ensure accuracy. In the first instance last week, we had communication out in about 30 minutes. In the second instance, it took roughly an hour. In neither of those instances was a threat imminent. In fact, in neither of those instances was the threat even credible. 

Let's for a moment unpack the concept 'credible'. One of the questions we oftentimes hear from our constituents when we make a determination that a threat isn't credible is, 'How do you know'? Well, we really rely on our law enforcement partners to make this determination. These professionals are trained to assess threats and determine their credibility. Even so, here are some things that are taken into consideration:

Specificity and Detail: Vague threats are often less credible than those with specific details, such as a target, time, or weapon. Implied threats can be difficult to assess, as they rely on interpretation.

Source Reliability: Known individuals who have made threats in the past are more likely to be credible. Anonymous sources should be evaluated with caution, as their identity can't be verified. Social media posts can be easily manipulated or misinterpreted, so we must consider the context and the poster's credibility. Have there been copycat incidents lately, not only locally but nationwide? Have bulletins been issued related to a practice known as 'swatting'. 

Intent and Capability: Past behavior can provide clues about a person's intentions. Has the individual shown signs of aggression, violence, or mental health issues? Access to resources can indicate their capability to carry out a threat. Do they have access to weapons or other means of causing harm?

Context and Timing: Current events or personal stressors can influence a person's behavior and the credibility of their threats. The timing of the threat can also be significant. Was it made in a moment of anger or impulsivity?

Based on an evaluation of these variables, in collaboration with our law enforcement partners, it determined these threats were not credible and posed no danger to our school community. 

The students who reported these threats absolutely did the right thing. We applaud their courage to immediately seek out a teacher and administrator. We continue to remind our students if they are concerned about a threat, it's important to report it to the appropriate authorities so they can investigate and take necessary action. All administrators and teachers in the district are trained to take these reports seriously and we are obligated to investigate them fully. 

Remember, it's always better to err on the side of caution and take any threat seriously. If you're feeling unsafe or threatened, don't hesitate to seek help from a trusted friend, family member, or professional. Safe and Sound Iowa is another great resource that can be used to report a threat.

I would encourage you to continue to please have conversations about this with your children. Remind them this is nothing to joke about. A passing comment made in jest is not an adequate defense. When determining the appropriate disciplinary sanctions to pose, our test is to determine whether or not it resulted in a substantial disruption to the learning environment. If we have to send out a district wide notification and it ends up impacting school attendance, our answer to that is always going to be 'Yes', it was a substantial disruption to the learning environment. I can promise those sanctions are severe. 

Finally I'll close with this. You can be assured that our district takes these issues incredibly seriously. Our communication protocol is swift; but not to the point of sacrificing speed for missing or inaccurate information. Threats, even those that are deemed not credible (as these clearly were) are incredibly high stress and anxiety filled evolutions that require very quick thinking. We are never granted the benefit of hindsight or the ability to make these calls from the comfort of our easy chair. Do teams like ours conduct after action reviews to evaluate our response and update protocols where appropriate? Every single time. Thank you for all you do, your support, and allowing me to share my thoughts about this topic.