DMPS Public Meeting: Graduate Goals

About 30 people, mostly staff in the Des Moines Public Schools, attended a public meeting on proposed new graduation goals for students in the school district. Outreach by the State Public Policy Group (SPPG) on behalf of the school board earlier this year showed clear differences between what district staff, parents, and voters consider to be priorities for students. For example, 68.8% of parents considered reading a priority compared to 65.5% of voters and 48.4% of staff. At the bottom of the list was character development, supported by 41.1% of parents, 33.9% of voters, and 25.7% of staff. The next lowest ranking item was critical thinking, which was considered important by 42.6% of parents and 26.5% of staff. However, voters supported critical thinking by 43%, almost 10 percentage points higher than character development.

The November 13th meeting held at Merrill Middle School was the the second of three scheduled for this week throughout the city. After school board Member Connie Boessen talked briefly about the school board’s responsibilities under Policy Governance, school Superintendent Dr. Nancy Sebring reviewed the community conversations process overseen by SPPG, the proposed end goals for graduates, and projects under way that will set the district on a future course (e.g., the International Baccalaureate program). Attendees then gathered into groups to discuss the goals. We were asked if the end goals were headed in the right direction and what needed to be changed to accomplish them. Five board members were present (Boessen, President Dick Murphy, Jeannette Woods, Patty Link, and Jon Narcisse) and there was one member sitting in almost every group. By chance, I participated in a group that included Narcisse, a grandmother, and some district staff (i.e., teachers or principals). I contributed comments similar to those I noted in my analysis of the proposed student goals for AroundDesMoines.com.

After half-an-hour of discussion, Sebring asked the groups to summarize their discussions. The two big themes were that staff could work with the goals but they wanted to know what was going to happen when students didn’t meet those ends and how the district administration was going to be held accountable. In my group, it was the business person and the parent who wanted wording changed. Another group also had concerns with some wording, although no specific examples were shared.

In short, I would say staff cared about execution of goals, parents cared how the goals would prepare their children for life and work, and businesses/community members cared how the goals would influence interaction with graduates. In the group in which I participated, the grandmother wanted students to finish school with the attitude, “I am smart and I can do it.” The business person said graduates’ should be able to participate in democracy. Staff were concerned about students’ current achievements and social promotions. A couple groups wanted to add an economic-based goal of multilingual skills for both teachers and graduates. One group suggested a tax penalty or credit for parents based on their children’s school attendance record.

M.R. Field is editor of Leading Voices: Iowa.