RPS RECAP: Feb 1, 2023

Happy Thursday, Board Watchers! Last night’s budget meeting was a mixed bag and I cannot wait to tell you about it. Per usual, the discussion jumped around quite a bit. So let’s lump this recap into a few buckets:

  • The Superintendent’s Presentation

  • United Opposition

  • The Surprise Motion

  • Strong Leadership

  • “Are there other questions?”

The Superintendent’s Presentation

Ordinarily, leading into budget season, the Superintendent will collect funding priorities from the Board, his Cabinet, and his Principals. (I imagine this looks like me, as a 5 year old, circling every other thing in the Toys R Us catalog and calling it my “Christmas List.”) 

Then, over the course of several months, this information is combined with things like how much will utilities cost and what will elected leaders at the local, state, and federal level contribute to education this fiscal year? Kamras says there’s “a bit of an art to the science here” - a research-based guessing game. The end result is the draft budget.

Come January, he presents this draft to the Board. The rest is out of his hands. It’s now their job to go line-by-line and decide “does this toy make it under the Christmas tree” or not? Sometimes the Board asks questions to help them make informed decisions. The question-count this year currently stands at 47. 

We’ve learned important things like…

  • There isn’t really a district-wide strategy to improve student mental health because there’s not enough staff to meet current demand. Director “Angela [Jones] can’t actually spend the time to ensure consistency of experience for kids because she’s running from school to school handling shootings and child abuse allegations…” (I’m recycling this quote from the last RECAP because I’m still processing it.) When you see the numbers - 1189 threats of violence, 372 threats of suicide, 125 reports to CPS, 13 shootings - it’s not hard to understand why this department is alarmed and overwhelmed.

  • It would cost the school division $20-25M to put sprinklers in all our schools. That’s more than twice what the Board is currently considering investing in RPS facilities this year. Putting all CIP money into the “sprinkler” basket though neglects other urgent repairs - like replacing the roof at Maymont Preschool, which is in such dire shape that it partially-collapsed into the cafeteria when my kid was enrolled there in 2016.

  • RPS paid $284,500 last year to send 79 RPS students and 47* private school or home schooled students to specialty schools last year. (*Rep Young notes - these are still taxpaying Richmond residents.) They expect to pay $300,221 in tuition fees this year. The Board has requested student’s racial demographic data, but this information is self-reported and many students opt not to disclose that information.

  • There’s not a whole lot RPS can do in light of Dominion’s 25% ($1.3M) increase in energy costs. Apparently, they’re not even sure that our existing energy saving efforts are “advantageous.” This super stinks. I worry this cost will jump year after year, since Dominion is lobbying the General Assembly (GA) to lift the cap on their corporate profits. (The SCC originally said this will let them “collect $2 billion more from its Virginia ratepayers by 2040” - but Dominion contested this claim and appears to have changed the SCC’s mind.)

  • RPS has a whole lot of schools that share psychologists and social workers; and that the GA is considering a whole bunch of bills that (sometimes) allocate more funds for support staff - but mostly just mandate more hiring in these areas. Supt Kamras tells Rep White that funding isn’t the only barrier to hiring counselors, interventionists, security staff, etc. Many of those positions are vacant because nobody is applying for them. He assures her these job postings are all online.

  • RPS is not losing funding when students are absent. Everyone - including me! - thought this was the case. State funds are based on student enrollment, not attendance. Turns out it just looked like it was tied to attendance because absenteeism and enrollment numbers moved in lock step last year. (Kamras used the Omicron wave as an example: kids were sick and absent at the same time families pulled their kids out of public school to avoid COVID exposure.)

  • The Richmond Virtual Academy - at least at the elementary level - is seriously under-capacity. There are 110 students enrolled in K-5th, with a staff capacity for 186. That’s 59%. Enrollment is pretty lopsided by grade. It appears the staff investment is most efficient at the middle school level, which is enrolled at 83% capacity. (This is all based on the state’s prescribed student:teacher ratio, and not necessarily a teacher or parent’s preferred class size.)

  • The Coordinator of Gifted & Talented Programs is one of 10 central office positions RIF’ed in the draft budget. These cuts are proposed to “hold schools harmless,” and make room in the budget for other Board priorities. This does not mean that RPS is cutting the Gifted and Talented programs themselves. SPACE, AP programs, and specialty school tasks would be reassigned to the academic and engagement offices.

There’s currently a 17 page document full of Admin’ answers to Board questions. I’m sure there will be even more come Monday’s Board meeting, which will hopefully give the Board the confidence they need to start agreeing on cuts/investments.

United Opposition

Immediately after the Superintendent delivered his presentation, Rep Jonathan Young read his budget amendments into the official record. Maybe “amendment” isn’t really the right word for it - because it doesn’t move the conversation forward on any of the budget discussion points noted above. His colleagues favor labels like a disappointment (Gibson), a confusion (Rizzi), and a distraction (White). 

We’re talking, of course, about Young’s controversial proposal to close 5 RPS schools, save $5M in energy costs, and invest instead in an elaborate transportation system to enable student enrollment into other schools with vacant seats.

His plan also includes a $630K increase in funding for a “Redesign of Career and Technical Education” (CTE) - which he tells me doesn’t refer to a renovation of any sort, but an increase to programming and personnel. 

Young says the thousands of vacant seats in RPS are “the elephant in the room.” Spreading our students across many, under-enrolled schools is “doing our students an injustice, because we are unable to provide said-students with all the resources they so rightly deserve.” (This is certainly true of school psychologists, per the Superintendent’s presentation, who often cover 2-3 schools.)

Some of these things - expanding CTE, offering transportation for open enrollment, and ensuring students have access to more support staff - are widely popular across this Board. But none of his colleagues discuss any of that because the “closing 5 schools” headlines have totally thrown them - and their constituents - for a loop.

Chairwoman Rizzi “has no words.” The community thought this was a Board proposal - instead of a proposal by one Board member. She offers the community an apology and encouraging words:

“We won’t be making decisions like this without deep engagement from you. Let me apologize, as a part of this body, for any stress that you incurred as a result of this.” 

Likewise, Gibson regrets that families are worried over a proposal that is “very unlikely to happen.” 

There is no motion to adopt this proposal. 

It fails as much because of its premise (closing 5 schools) as it does because of a political mis-calculation: He pitched this plan in the press before he pitched it to his Board colleagues. This flooded their phones and inboxes with concerned citizens, and put them in a defensive posture. He took an unpopular idea anyway, and introduced it in the most alarming way possible. 

In politics (and life) what you’re asking for matters as much as how you ask for it. He is the first Board member to make this mistake tonight, but he will not be the last. 

Rep White, who is on quite a winning streak as the Board’s “voice of reason” sinks the nail in the school-closure coffin:

“I would like to stay focused on our budget tonight, and no more diversions.”

The Surprise Motion

Unfortunately for Rep White, the budget discussion was also hijacked by a trademark same-night-motion from her colleague, Rep Gibson.

The representative from the 3rd district is unsatisfied with the one-year budget before her. She prefers a 2-year budget, and she wants the administration to submit a draft of one to the Board in 3 business days. 

For those who attended virtually, this suggestion made the audience burst into whispers. 

The superintendent said that this could not be done. It takes his team months to compile a budget, not 3 days. He also doesn’t know what this year’s state funding will look like - much less next year’s. He offers to provide a multi-year budget forecast instead - including areas he expects to lose funding when one-time American Rescue Plan funds run out.

Ultimately, the substance of the motion gets little discussion, because Gibson’s same-night-motion (like Young’s “School Closure” press strategy) was it’s own distraction. 

The rest of the Board - Chairwoman Rizzi, Vice-Chair Burke, Reps White and Page - object to Gibson’s near-constant use of this ambush strategy. They ask the Board Attorney to weigh in:

Same-night motions aren’t illegal, but there was “nothing noted about board action on the published agenda” so a lack of transparency “is an issue.” 

Gibson’s colleagues consistently share this same concern with her. They do not like to have motions (of any kind) sprung on them. They want time to discuss the merits, hear the concerns of their constituents, or to do their own research and consideration before they come back and vote on a motion. This is the whole reason the Board adopted a “2-read policy” in the first place: motions are proposed at 1 meeting, and voted on at the next.

Chairwoman Rizzi says she does not want this motion to halt the Board’s discussion of the budget. They vote it down 4-2, after losing 17 minutes (or 16%) of the meeting to this surprise motion.

If we take Gibson at her (revised) word - she’s absolutely right. Asking for additional context about the district’s shrinking ARP funds “shouldn’t require a motion.” Next time, she should try asking the Chairwoman to add this as a discussion item for their next budget workshop, instead. 

Strong Leadership

The night wasn’t perfect, but it was made significantly better by key interventions by Chairwoman Rizzi and Vice-Chair Burke:

  • They repeatedly held their colleagues to the only agenda item: the budget. Other topics, like the extended school calendar pilot, were stopped and will be picked up again when they are on the agenda - Monday night.

  • They leaned on the Board attorney to hold their colleagues accountable to Board norms; and 

  • They told a colleague to “tone down the rhetoric” when they suggested other Board members were “not proactive,” “not mindful,” or somehow irresponsible. This lays a clear expectation for more considerate discourse going forward.

This is such a welcomed transformation from the 2022 Board’s governance style. I hope this momentum carries into next week’s full Board meeting - even if the 15-item agenda suggests another late night.

“Are there other questions?”

I’ve been boardwatching long enough that same-night motions and off-topic discussions no longer surprise me. But the absolute silence after this question very much did.

The Board spent so much of their discussion time on the antics of two of their colleagues that they managed to get in very few actual questions relating to the budget this work session was meant to make headway on. 

They didn't spend any time going line-by-line - as requested - to figure out what their consensus was relating to new or current expenditures. 

So - since these budget work sessions didn’t allow for community questions - and they ran out of their own - I decided to share a few of my own here:

  • Can RPS consolidate multiple grades into each under-enrolled virtual classroom? Maybe for K-1 especially? Or, do we know how many students are interested in enrolling in RVA next year?

  • What upcoming opportunities are there for the Board/City/Community to lobby for the budget amendments the General Assembly is currently considering?

  • Has (or will) the LULAC committee offered any budget recommendations for language justice initiatives?

  • A Board member is concerned that teacher bonuses are higher for new recruits than for teachers who renew their contracts. Are either of these financial incentives working? Is there any indication that pay is driving teachers into (or out of) RPS? I know the recent JLARC report “asked school staff to rate the seriousness of 15 issues faced by school staff, such as teacher compensation, student academic progress, lack of respect from parents, and concerns about health during the pandemic. Student behavior problems were rated as the most serious of all 15 issues listed.”

  • Community groups keep asking for more career and technical training programs, even while several of RPS’ CTE programs are under-enrolled. Can the district save money on staff and offer a more varied trade curriculum by paying neighboring districts for students to attend their trade schools? (Maybe we already do this?)

  • Can the Board revisit vacant properties in the RPS portfolio that they can sell off now?

  • Would the Board/Administration consider moving central office staff out of the otherwise-vacant Norrell School and into a wing of one of the schools Jonathan Young has identified as far under-capacity? Could this impact energy savings the 4th district representative is after? Or even shifting some under-enrolled Elementary schools to K-6, to fill those vacant seats? Seems like there’s some room (pun intended) for creativity.

  • Are there community partners that would donate labor or materials to moving RPS towards more solar power? Is this the kind of initiative the RPS Foundation might support or solicit funds for?

  • Since state funding is so crucial to the health of the school district, is it worth investing in an additional central office staffer to free up RPS’ sole lobbyist from work that is unrelated to the general assembly? Or, are there any of the 119 RIF’ed central office staff positions related to increasing district revenue that the admin/Board should consider bringing back?

I’m sure many of these ideas have been considered in the past. Maybe they’re all dead-ends. But it sure seems a better use of time than arguing over Robert's rules of order for 17 minutes, doesn’t it? 

I’ll keep you posted as this discussion evolves. I’d also like to close by extending thoughts to our 6th district representative, who suffered a significant car crash en route to last night’s meeting. She is doing well, from what we’ve heard, and hope she continues to heal from what was surely a traumatic experience. 

I’ll be back next week to keep you up to date on the February 5th Board Meeting. There will be public comment, so you are welcomed (and encouraged!) to write-in or come deliver your thoughts on the Board’s budget priorities, or other school matters. See you there, at MLK Middle School, 6PM. Enjoy your weekend!

Becca DuVal