Minority Report Assessment 2012 : Evaluation of Superintendent Tom Boasberg

DPS Board of Education Minority Report – Superintendent’s Evaluation 12/20/12 Page 1

DPS BOARD OF EDUCATION – MINORITY REPORT

Superintendent’s Evaluation, 12/20/12

FULFILLING DISTRICT OBJECTIVES

Increasing Academic Performance (Status)

Observed Performance: The metric to be evaluated to measure the Superintendent’s performance related to

increasing the academic performance (status) comes from the Denver Plan. This metric says, “(o)n average, the

proficiency rate for grade level cohorts will increase 3.5% in reading, writing, and math over each.

The table below summarizes District-wide data for the period between academic year 2009-2010 through

academic year 2011-2012, the last testing data available for the Colorado Student Assessment.

Reading Writing Math

2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012

District Wide

Score

50% 49% 52% 35% 39% 41% 39% 41% 43%

Year-to-Year

Increase

-1 pts 3 pts 4 pts 2 pts 2 pts 2 pts

Data compiled from the CDE Colorado Growth Model

Assessment: Based on these results, the superintendent receives a “partially meets” evaluation for improving

academic achievement district wide.

Evaluation: Increases in academic performance should be additive based on the goal established in the Denver

Plan. This being the case, academic performance (status) should have increased by 24.5 percentage points since

academic year 2005/2006. Applying this model to the time period between academic year 2009/2010 to

2011/2012, the district’s status would be 57% at or above proficient for reading, 42% in writing, and 46% in math.

Under the Superintendent’s leadership, the district has not come close to these levels of performance.

Development Actions: Therefore, the Superintendent shall develop a detailed plan for improving student

performance (status) for the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 academic years. This plan will address the Denver Plan

objective for increasing the performance status of all students by 3.5% and shall include the following to improve

district academic performance:

• Methods to be used

• Changes in the instructional model

• Metrics for assessing progress toward meeting the Denver Plan goal

• Identification of risk that may affect the District’s ability to improve and risk management methodologies to manage

these risks

The Superintendent shall provide updates on District progress related to this action item at each monthly meeting

of the school board. The board shall assess the Superintendent’s progress and provide him with feedback on a

quarterly basis.

Expected Outcomes of the 2013 Performance Period: The District’s academic performance shall increase by 3.5

percentage points per year as measured by both the 2013 and 2014 TCAP testing events.


Increasing Academic Performance (growth)

Observed Performance: The metric to be evaluated measuring the Superintendent’s performance related to

decreasing the number of students scoring unsatisfactory on the state’s standardized test comes from the Denver

Plan. This metric says, On average, the percentage of students scoring unsatisfactory will decrease by 3.5% in

reading, writing, and math each year.

The table below summarizes District-wide data, by grade, for the percent change in students scoring unsatisfactory

on the CSAP for the period between academic year 2009-2010 and academic year 2011-2012, the last testing data

available for the Colorado Student Assessment Test. The expected change is 3.5 percentage points.

Grade


2010 2011 2012 11/12

Delta

2010 2011 2012 11/12

Delta

2010 2011 2012 11/12

Delta

3 24% 18% 14.5 -3.5

pts

15% 12% 10% -2 pts 18% 18% 17% -1 pts

4 22% 25% 21% -4 pts 16% 15% 14% -1 pts 18% 18% 17% -1 pts

5 23% 24% 21% -3 pts 11% 9% 9.5% 0.5 pts 17% 20% 18% -2 pts

6 18% 21% 18% -3 pts 9% 8% 9% 1 pts 22% 22% 20% -2 pts

7 22% 24% 22.5 -1.5

pts

9% 6% 6% 0 pts 33% 25% 25% 0 pts

8 19% 18% 21% 3 pts 7% 7% 5% -2 pts 34% 32% 34% 2 pts

9 17% 16% 14% -2 pts 12% 10% 9% -1 pts 52% 51% 49% -2 pts

10 17% 17% 15% -2 pts 16% 11% 12% 1 pts 49% 47% 43% -4 pts

Data compiled from the CDE School View Data Lab

Assessment: Based on these results, the superintendent receives a “partially meets” evaluation for decreasing

district-wide the percent of students receiving an unsatisfactory ranking on the state’s standardized test.

Evaluation: As above, decreases in the students receiving unsatisfactory ratings should be additive based on the

goal established in the Denver Plan. This being the case, this numbers should have decreased by 24.5 percentage

points since academic year 2005/2006. Nowhere has this gain been seen for this metric. However, in Reading, the

data show that a solid track record of decreasing the number of unsatisfactory evaluations is being achieved

overall. The Superintendent should take heart in this achievement as it appears to be reflective the hard work

performed under his leadership related to reading in all schools across the district. However, this same gains are

not being seen in Math and Writing.

Development Actions: The Superintendent shall perform an analysis showing the reasons for the improvements

being achieved in Reading. The Superintendent will then evaluate the ability of the District to implement these

same strategies across the Writing and Math subject areas. Based on this evaluation, the Superintendent will

develop a detailed plan for implementing these strategies for the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 academic years. This

plan shall include the following to decrease the number of unsatisfactory ratings received by district students:






these risks

The Superintendent shall provide updates to the school board on District progress related to this action item

quarterly. These updates shall be provided as part of the board monthly meetings. The board shall assess the

Superintendent’s progress and provide him with feedback at the six month point in this assessment cycle.

Expected Outcomes of the 2013 Performance Period: The District’s academic performance shall increase by 3.5

percentage points per year as measured by both the 2013 and 2014 TCAP testing events.

Decreasing the Achievement Gap


increasing the academic performance (growth) comes from the Denver Plan. This metric says, The performance

gap between Asian / Caucasian students and African-American / Hispanic students scoring Proficient & above on

CSAP will decrease by 3.5% annually, closing the achievement gap.

The table below summarizes District-wide data for the period between academic year 2009/10 through academic

year 2011-2012, the last testing data available for the TCAP.


Asn Wht Blk Lat

Asn Wht Blk Lat

Asn Wht Blk Lat

2010

CSAP 59% 76% 45% 40% 48% 62% 29% 26% 56% 63% 28% 32%

2010

Medi

an

68% 43%

Gap

25.0

pts

55% 28%

Gap

27.5

pts

60% 30%

Gap

29.5

pts

2011

CSAP 53% 82% 40% 40% 46% 73% 30% 29% 54% 71% 26% 35%

2011

Medi

an

68% 40%

Gap

27.5

pts

60% 30%

Gap

30.0

pts

63% 31%

Gap

32.0

pts

Points Reduction 2010 vs 2011 +2.5 pts +2.5 pts +2.5 pts

2012

TCAP 58% 84% 43% 42% 51% 74% 30% 32% 59% 75% 27% 35%

2012

Medi

an

71% 42.5% 28.5

pts 62.5% 31%

31.5

pts 67% 31%

Gap

36.0

pts

Points Reduction 2011 vs 2012 +1.5 pts +1.5 pts +4.5 pts

Data compiled from the CDE School View Data Lab

• * Asn = Asian Students; Wht = White Students; Blk = Black Students; Lat = Latino Students

Assessment: Based on these results, the superintendent receives a “does not meet” evaluation for decreasing the

achievement gap between Asian / White students and Black / Latino students.

Evaluation: Decreases in the achievement gap should be additive based on the goal established in the Denver Plan.

This being the case, the achievement gap should have increased by 24.5 percentage points since academic year


2005/2006. If, in fact, the goal had been met every year since the 2005/2006 school year, the achievement gap

would not be no greater than 4.5 points in math and would have effectively been wiped away in reading.

However, despite some gains related to academic performance (status), the achievement gap is increasing

between Asian/White students and Black/Hispanic students. Further, this is the second year in a row that the

Superintended has not met this performance objective.

Development Actions: The Superintendent shall develop a detailed plan for decreasing the achievement gap for

the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 academic years. This plan will address the Denver Plan objective for decreasing the

achievement gap that exists between Asian / White students and Black / Latino by 3.5 percentage points and shall

include the following to improve district performance:





these risks



quarterly basis.

Expected Outcomes of the 2013 Performance Period: The District’s academic achievement gap will decrease by

3.5 percentage points per year as measured by both the 2013 and 2014 TCAP testing events.

Increasing Graduation Rates


increasing the graduation rate comes from the Denver Plan. This metric says, The graduation rate for DPS students

will increase by 5% per year to reach 82% in 2012 (base of 52% for 06-07).

The table below summarizes District-wide graduation data for the period between academic year 2009 through

academic year 2011, the last testing data available for graduation rates in DPS.

2009 2010 2011

All Students 53% 52% 56%

Asian Students 74% 68% 71%

White Students 63% 62% 66%

Black Students 56% 54% 58%

Latino Students 46% 47% 51%

Data taken from CDE School View Data Center and http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/rv2011GradLinks.htm

Assessment: Based on these results, the superintendent receives a “does not meet” evaluation for increasing the

graduation of students in DPS.

Evaluation: Graduation is a milestone in the academic lives of students and, as such, we consider this outcome and

the preparedness of district students post graduation to be primary indicators of district success. As with other

metrics, increases in graduation rate should be additive, as is demonstrated by the overarching goal of an 82%


graduation rate by 2012. While these data are not available for this evaluation, it is highly unlikely that our

students will have attained this graduation rate when, after 4 years, the rate has increased by 4%, or 1 percentage

point less than one year’s expected increase.

Further, it is noted that the gap between Asian / White graduation rates and the rates of Black and Latino students

has remained static.

Development Actions: The Superintendent shall develop a detailed plan for increasing the district’s graduation

rate based on the metric established in the Denver Plan. This plan will address the Denver Plan objective for

decreasing the achievement gap that exists between Asian / White students and Black / Latino by 3.5 percentage

points and shall include the following to improve district performance:





these risks



quarterly basis.

Expected Outcomes of the 2013 Performance Period: The District’s graduation rate will increase by 5 percentage

points per year as measured for the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 TCAP academic years.

FISCAL MANAGEMENT OF THE DISTRICT

The members of the board’s minority recognize that the District’s financial health is reliant on many facets,

including budgeting, expenditures, debt management, investment, and finance. Each of these areas is addressed

below.

District Budgeting and Expenditure Reporting

Observed Performance: The Denver Plan contains a central theme regarding budgeting: increasing the

transparency associated with budgeting and ensuring that schools create budgets based on a PPOR model.

Unfortunately, the Denver Plan does not offer specific objectives or measurable outcomes to support the

evaluation of whether or not the District is making progress for achieving these goals.

However, Board Policy DB – Annual Budget, states:

The budget shall be presented in a summary format which is understandable by any lay person reviewing the

district's budget. The budget format shall itemize expenditures of the district by fund and by student. It shall

describe the expenditure, show amount budgeted and amount estimated to be expended for the current fiscal

year and the amount budgeted for the ensuing fiscal year.

The budget also shall disclose planned compliance with Article X, Section 20, of the Colorado constitution.

The Board assigns to the superintendent overall responsibility for budget preparation, budget presentation and

budget administration, but he shall have the authority to delegate portions of this responsibility.

Insofar as possible, the budget adopted by the Board shall be sufficient to implement all programs and policies

that have had Board approval.

Neither the documents included on the district’s Budget Office webpage nor the presentation to the board’s

finance and audit committee “itemize expenditures of the district by fund and by student” nor do they “describe


the expenditure, show amount budgeted and amount estimated to be expended for the current fiscal year and the

amount budgeted for the ensuing fiscal year.”

It should be noted that the district’s Budget Office webpage does include a spreadsheet of line item budgetary

items, but this spreadsheet is hardly usable by “any lay person.” This spreadsheet provides 19,000 rows of raw

data but no meaningful reporting or analysis of the data to support the public’s understanding of the district’s

budget.

Further, Board Policy DBD -- Determination of Budget Priorities states:

Each school-level accountability committee (Collaborative School Committee) shall make recommendations to

the principal relative to priorities for expenditures of district funds by the school. A copy of these

recommendations shall be sent to the district accountability committee and to the Board. The principal shall

consider these recommendations when formulating budget requests to be presented to the Board of Education.

The district accountability committee shall make recommendations to the Board relative to priorities for

expenditures of district funds. The Board shall consider these priorities when it adopts the annual budget.

This policy was not followed as part of the budgetary process conducted this evaluation period, nor has it been

followed during the past budgetary cycles.

Finally, Board Policy DFA -- Investment and Cash Management Policy states that the board’s finance and audit

committee will receive quarterly reports summarizing cash receipts and disbursements for the following funds:

• General Fund (to include the Emergency Reserve)

• Capital Reserve Fund (to include the Emergency Reserve)

• Self-Insurance Internal Service Fund

• Other Internal Service Funds

• Government Designated Purpose Grants Fund (excluding federal funds which are required to be held in non-interest

bearing accounts)

• Special Revenue Funds (as appropriate)

• Pupil Activity Fund

• Food Services Fund

• Permanent Government Fund

• Private Purpose (Trust) fund – (excluding the Retiree Health Benefit Trust)

• Building Fund

• Bond Redemption Fund

• Any new fund created by the District, unless specifically exempted

Such reports have not been received as part of meetings of the board’s finance and audit committee meetings.

Assessment: Based on compliance with Board Policy DB, DBD, DBF, the Superintendent receives a “does not meet”

evaluation for related to the budgetary process, budgetary transparency, and expenses reporting to both the board

and the public.

Evaluation: It is unclear why the board policies cited above are not being followed. In particular, the board’s

investment and cash management policy was revised in 2011. The other policies, while older, maintain the spirit

of Colorado statute, that the public and the public’s elected officials shall have transparency into the financial

operations of the school district.

Development Action: The Superintendent shall develop a detailed plan for complying with Board Policies DB, DBD,

and DBF. This plan shall be presented to the board at the January 2013 board meeting and will include proposed

modifications to the budgetary process including a process diagram, as well as templates for reporting the budget

to the public as per board policy and for reporting expenditures associated with the funds identified in Policy DBF.


The plan shall also include a quality control procedure for the information to be reported. This procedure shall

ensure that information contained in all reports are accurate at the time each report is prepared.

Expected Outcomes of the 2013 Performance Period: The Superintendent shall begin providing updates related

to fund expenditures at the February meeting of the board’s finance and audit committee. The budgetary

development and approval process for the 2013/2014 fiscal year shall comply with applicable board policy.

Debt Management

Observed Performance: The Denver Plan contains three central themes regarding debt and debt management:

1. Secured and re-affirmed a AA credit rating, allowing Denver taxpayers to pay lower interest costs on district debt.

2. DPS will continue to maintain contingency reserves and appropriate fund balances to ensure DPS, and therefore

Denver taxpayers, achieve the most competitive interest rates on its debt obligations.

3. Effectively manage bond debt to limit taxpayer obligations. We will maintain a good credit rating, use federal stimulus

programs, and appropriately issue debt to limit interest costs.

Under item 1 above, the board’s minority members commend the Superintendent has done an excellent job

maintaining the district’s AA credit ratings and the credit ratings for its debt.

Under item 2, it is unclear to what extent the Superintendent is maintaining these reserves and funds as the

board’s finance and audit committee has not received the quarterly report described above. Without this

information, the superintendent cannot be evaluated related to this objective.

Under item 3, the superintendent’s performance is questionable. For example, during this last evaluation period,

DPS was authorized by voters to issue $466 million in bond debt. However, the manner in which the debt was

issued did not follow board policy and discussion related to the issuing mechanism happened in violation of the

Colorado’s sunshine laws.

Board Policy DFB – Debt Policy states:

The form of debt shall be determined by the Chief Financial Officer of the District, presented to the Finance and

Audit Committee for its consideration, and recommended to the Board for action. Consideration shall be given to

a number of factors as noted in prior sections of this Policy.

When issuing the $466 million in debt approved by voters as part of the November 2012 election, the Chief

Financial Officer never presented the board’s finance and audit committee with the proposed form of the debt (in

this case, premium bonds), nor was a recommendation forthcoming for action at any board of education meeting.

Therefore, neither body of elected officials could consider the debt issue based on the other factors contained in

the Debt Policy.

On December 3rd

, four board members met under the auspicious of executive session. However, the meeting was

not noticed prior to its occurrence, the board did not enter executive session legally, and none of the reasons fir

entering into executive session stated at the start of the meeting was discussed during the meeting. In short, the

meeting was used to brief board members on the concepts of premium bonds but not to receive legal counsel or

discuss strategies associated with the bond’s sales. The bonds then when to market and were sold on December 4,

2012 at 4:05 EST without any formal discussion or vote by the board.

Assessment: The Superintendent receives a “partially meets” evaluation related to the debt management.

Evaluation: Members of the board’s minority feel, while it is critical to maintain the district’s credit ratings, it is

equally critical to meet the requirements of policy before issuing more debt. Since 2007, when this superintendent

began fulfilling his role, the Districts debt has gone from $750 million to now over $2 billion in long-term liabilities.

This escalation in liability suggests the critical nature of ensuring the public’s money is not only being used wisely


but that the district’s elected officials are made aware of and are comfortable with the methods being used by the

superintendent to issue debt. In this case, insufficient time and a lack of public discussion occurred before the

superintendent and his team took $466 million to market.

Development Action: The Superintendent shall develop a detailed plan for taking debt to market and include:

• Identification of all decision points whereat a determination must be made related to debt mechanisms, interest

rates, and short and long-term risks

• The means for obtaining board input at each of these points

• Identification of the board deliverables to be prepared to document the board’s decisions

This plan shall be presented to the board at the February 2013 board meeting.

Expected Outcomes of the 2013 Performance Period: The Superintendent shall follow board policy when issuing

or refinancing debt.

District Investment and Finance

These areas are not evaluated because of a lack of information.

DISTRICT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

Compliance with Board Policy

Observed Performance: Board Policy CH – Policy Implementation states:

The Superintendent has the responsibility for administering policies adopted by the Board of Education.

During this past revaluation period, the superintendent has had repeated violations to board policy, including:

• Breach of Policy FB: Historical Designation of Facilities. It is clear that the seven-year review of potential Tier 1

properties, as called out in Policy FB, has not been followed. Further, the Superintendent has authorized an

application for a Certificate of Non-Historic Status for the Emily Griffith Opportunity School without a public process

as delineated in the policy.

• Breach of Policy FN: Shared Campuses. This policy states that, when considering to co-locate a school in another

school’s building, the Superintendent and his team will evaluate the following as part of the team’s recommendation

to the board:

� Regional demographic data and trends

� Enrollment and performance data and trends in potentially affected schools

� Community views

� Preferences of the new and existing schools

� Compatibility between new and existing schools

� Availability of school choices in each region

� Geographic feeder patterns

The board has been provided no work products associated with co-location recommendations and, thus, turmoil has

surrounded co-locations at Merrill Middle School and at North High School. By not complying with Board Policy FN,

the Superintendent has not sufficiently demonstrated careful analysis of regional demographic data and trends,

community views, preferences of the new and existing schools, compatibility between new and existing schools, or

geographic feeder patterns.

• Breach of Policy BGA: Policy Development System. This policy states,

The Board or the Superintendent may prepare recommendations for the formulation, amendment or

repeal of policy. Whenever policy formulation, amendment or repeal is contemplated, notice of such


proposed policy making, amendment or repeal shall be given to the public and the public shall be

informed of when there will be a public hearing on such proposed policy. Interested parties may

submit written or oral comments and or participate in the Board's public comment session as time

permits on contemplated policy adoption, revision or repeal.

However, the Denver Charter Compact policy was not noticed, nor was the public offered a public hearing on the

proposed policy, the Superintendent has deprived the Board of Education of its power “to formulate policies for the

administration of the Denver Public Schools” and has therefore willfully and intentionally violated Policy BGA.

• Policy JB -- Equal Education Opportunities states,

All students within this school district regardless of race, color, religion, sex, marital status, national

origin, disability, or sexual orientation or gender identity shall be equally entitled to the benefits of

good education

However, the superintendent has not worked with the board in a public manner to address the mandates of the ELA

consent decree regarding appropriate staffing levels, the rights of students to receive either Spanish-first or sheltered

English instruction, and the rights of Spanish-speaking DPS students to receive a “good education.”

Assessment: Based on repeated violation of the board’s policies, the Superintendent receives a “does not meet”

evaluation for implementation of District Planning and Management.

Evaluation: The members of the board’s minority find these repeated violations of board policy very troubling.

Most of DPS’ board policies are anchored in Colorado statute. Further, policies off the framework for conducting

the public’s business associated with the school district. Even when a board vote appears to be a fait accompli, the

Superintendent must still function within the law and district policies.

Development Action: The superintendant shall not violate board policy during the next evaluation period, else, as

per his employment contract, the board’s minority will actively seek his removal per Item 8, Clause 5 of his

contract, which reads,

The Board may at any time… terminate the Superintendent’s Contract for cause, which includes, but is not

limited to… (5) repeated intentional and willful violation by the Superintendent of the Board’s policies.

Expected Outcomes of the 2013 Performance Period: The Superintendent will have no violations of the Board of

Education Policies.

ASSIGNMENT OF BONUS

The Superintendent is to receive a maximum bonus of $50,000 according to his employment contract, to be

divided between objective and subjective measures. Using the majority members’ procedure to count “partially

met” objectives as “not met,” we have concluded that only four District goals have been met for this year. We

recommend the payment of $5,264 to the Superintendent for objective goals achieved.

With respect to subjective goals, we are troubled by what appears to be a repeated, willful and intentional

disregard of Board policies; therefore, we cannot recommend any portion of the performance-based

compensation for which the Superintendent is eligible at this time, for this year.

Respectfully submitted,

Jeanne Kaplan

Director, DPS District 3 (Central Denver)


Arturo Jimenez

Director, DPS District 5 (Downtown, Northwest and West Denver)

Andrea Merida

Director, DPS District 2 (West and Southwest Denver)

Documents

Minority Report Assessment 2012 : Evaluation of Superintendent Tom Boasberg