DPS BOARD OF EDUCATION MINORITY REPORT

Superintendents Evaluation, 12/20/12

FULFILLING DISTRICT OBJECTIVES

Increasing Academic Performance (Status)
Observed Performance: The metric to be evaluated to measure the Superintendents 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 2010 District Wide Score Year-to-Year Increase 50% 2011 49% 2012 52% 2010 35% Writing 2011 39% 2012 41% 2010 39% Math 2011 41% 2012 43%

-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 districts status would be 57% at or above proficient for reading, 42% in writing, and 46% in math. Under the Superintendents 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 Districts 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 Superintendents progress and provide him with feedback on a quarterly basis. Expected Outcomes of the 2013 Performance Period: The Districts academic performance shall increase by 3.5 percentage points per year as measured by both the 2013 and 2014 TCAP testing events. DPS Board of Education Minority Report Superintendents Evaluation 12/20/12 Page 1

Increasing Academic Performance (growth)

Observed Performance: The metric to be evaluated measuring the Superintendents performance related to decreasing the number of students scoring unsatisfactory on the states 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.
Reading Grade 2010 2011 2012 11/12 Delta -3.5 pts -4 pts -3 pts -3 pts -1.5 pts 3 pts -2 pts -2 pts 2010 Writing 2011 2012 11/12 Delta -2 pts 2010 Math 2011 2012 11/12 Delta -1 pts

24%

18%

14.5

15%

12%

10%

18%

18%

17%

4 5 6 7

22% 23% 18% 22%

25% 24% 21% 24%

21% 21% 18% 22.5

16% 11% 9% 9%

15% 9% 8% 6%

14% 9.5% 9% 6%

-1 pts 0.5 pts 1 pts 0 pts

18% 17% 22% 33%

18% 20% 22% 25%

17% 18% 20% 25%

-1 pts -2 pts -2 pts 0 pts

8 9 10

19% 17% 17%

18% 16% 17%

21% 14% 15%

7% 12% 16%

7% 10% 11%

5% 9% 12%

-2 pts -1 pts 1 pts

34% 52% 49%

32% 51% 47%

34% 49% 43%

2 pts -2 pts -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 states 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:
Methods to be used

DPS Board of Education Minority Report Superintendents Evaluation 12/20/12

Page 2

Changes in the instructional model Metrics for assessing progress toward meeting the Denver Plan goal Identification of risk that may affect the Districts ability to improve and risk management methodologies to manage 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 Superintendents progress and provide him with feedback at the six month point in this assessment cycle. Expected Outcomes of the 2013 Performance Period: The Districts 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

Observed Performance: The metric to be evaluated to measure the Superintendents performance related to 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.
Reading Asn 2010 CSAP 2010 Medi an 2011 CSAP 2011 Medi an Wht Blk Lat Asn Wht Writing Blk Lat Asn Wht Math Blk Lat

59%

76%

45%

40% Gap 25.0 pts

48% 55%

62%

29% 28%

26% Gap 27.5 pts 29% Gap 30.0 pts +2.5 pts

56% 60%

63%

28% 30%

32% Gap 29.5 pts 35% Gap 32.0 pts +2.5 pts

68%

43%

53%

82%

40%

40% Gap 27.5 pts +2.5 pts 42% 28.5 pts +1.5 pts

46% 60%

73%

30% 30%

54% 63%

71%

26% 31%

68%

40%

Points Reduction 2010 vs 2011 2012 TCAP 2012 Medi an 58% 84% 43%

51%

74%

30% 31%

32% 31.5 pts +1.5 pts

59% 67%

75%

27% 31%

35% Gap 36.0 pts +4.5 pts

71%

42.5%

62.5%

Points Reduction 2011 vs 2012 *

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 DPS Board of Education Minority Report Superintendents Evaluation 12/20/12 Page 3

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:
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 Districts 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 Superintendents progress and provide him with feedback on a quarterly basis. Expected Outcomes of the 2013 Performance Period: The Districts 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

Observed Performance: The metric to be evaluated to measure the Superintendents performance related to 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 All Students Asian Students White Students Black Students Latino Students 53% 74% 63% 56% 46% 2010 52% 68% 62% 54% 47% 2011 56% 71% 66% 58% 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%

DPS Board of Education Minority Report Superintendents Evaluation 12/20/12

Page 4

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 years 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 districts 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:
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 Districts 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 Superintendents progress and provide him with feedback on a quarterly basis. Expected Outcomes of the 2013 Performance Period: The Districts 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 boards minority recognize that the Districts 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 districts Budget Office webpage nor the presentation to the boards finance and audit committee itemize expenditures of the district by fund and by student nor do they describe DPS Board of Education Minority Report Superintendents Evaluation 12/20/12 Page 5

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 districts 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 publics understanding of the districts 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 boards 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 boards 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 boards 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 publics 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. DPS Board of Education Minority Report Superintendents Evaluation 12/20/12 Page 6

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 boards 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. 2. 3. Secured and re-affirmed a AA credit rating, allowing Denver taxpayers to pay lower interest costs on district debt. 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. 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 boards minority members commend the Superintendent has done an excellent job maintaining the districts 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 boards 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 superintendents 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 Colorados 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 boards 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 3 , 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 bonds 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 boards minority feel, while it is critical to maintain the districts 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 publics money is not only being used wisely DPS Board of Education Minority Report Superintendents Evaluation 12/20/12 Page 7
rd

but that the districts 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 boards 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 schools building, the Superintendent and his team will evaluate the following as part of the teams 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

DPS Board of Education Minority Report Superintendents Evaluation 12/20/12

Page 8

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 boards policies, the Superintendent receives a does not meet evaluation for implementation of District Planning and Management. Evaluation: The members of the boards 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 publics 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 boards minority will actively seek his removal per Item 8, Clause 5 of his contract, which reads,
The Board may at any time terminate the Superintendents Contract for cause, which includes, but is not limited to (5) repeated intentional and willful violation by the Superintendent of the Boards 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) DPS Board of Education Minority Report Superintendents Evaluation 12/20/12 Page 9

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

Andrea Merida Director, DPS District 2 (West and Southwest Denver)

DPS Board of Education Minority Report Superintendents Evaluation 12/20/12

Page 10