EMSD Needs Help Writing AND Following its Own Policies

An Elusive Meeting

The most recent Estancia Municipal School District (EMSD) Board Meeting took place this last Monday, July 11th. The meeting demonstrated to anyone who could find it that EMSD needs help writing AND following its own policies.

The fun began with several parents knocking on doors around the school buildings to figure out where the meeting would take place. The school policy states:

According to the calendar found on the school’s website, the meeting was (and still is) listed as taking place at the “Upper Elementary Library. Please enter from the Southwest door by the playground.”

Several of us followed the calendar’s instructions, believing them to be accurate. They were not. We checked the cafeteria, where a couple previous meetings had taken place, but the meeting was not in that location.

Silly us… it was in the Conference Room of the Administration Building, as per policy (well except the “otherwise specified” part where it was listed on the website as being in the Upper Elementary Library). We should have known they would follow policy, because they are oh so great at doing that.

Long Overdue Policy Revisions

In June, the Board began conducting extra “work sessions” half an hour before each regular meeting. During such work sessions the Board will review and update each policy, one by one. Someone must have read board policy 110.5, which states:

Oopsie, I don’t think they have been reviewing policies annually, as policy dictates.

One of the many neglected and outdated policies is 416.1, the “Parent Involvement Policy”. The policy states:

That is, it. That is the entirety of the policy. By contrast, the Title I Parent Involvement guide found on the New Mexico Public Education Department’s website mentions at least SIX elements which ought to be present in the typical Parental Involvement policy.

By law, and as a condition of receiving Title I funds, the district must update the policy, with parents, every year. However, the policy has not been updated since 11-11-09 according to the EMSD website.

This year and last the district received about $250k (each year) in response to the District’s Title I application. In those applications, the District provided assurances it had met the conditions of the Title I funding application. Those conditions included developing or updating, together with parents, the Parent Involvement Policy.

Given the lofty minimum requirements of the policy, it is no wonder a collaborative effort with maximum public involvement is required by Title I. According to the New Mexico Public Education Department “Student, School, and Family Support Guide”:

LEA parent and family engagement policy

Districts and schools must, with the involvement of parents with children in Title I schools, develop written parent and family engagement policies that meet the requirements of section 1116 of ESSA. LEA policies must be distributed to Title I parents in an understandable and uniform format. Policies must be evaluated annually, with meaningful involvement of parents. The evaluation process includes identifying needs of parents and family members to assist in their child’s learning and to address identified barriers to greater family participation. Strategies are identified and the LEA policy is revised, as necessary.

Page 8, 1st paragraph

School parent and family engagement policy

Each Title I school must develop, together with parents, a written parent and family engagement policy that is agreed upon by the parents. Parents must be notified of the policy in a uniform format and in a language the parents can understand. The school policy must be made available to the local community and updated periodically to meet the changing needs of the parents and school.

Page 8, 2nd paragraph

The school has not involved parents to the degree required by Title I, despite assurances provided in the most recent Title 1 application. The same can be said for last year’s application. Don’t forget to check Class Dojo, folks, because Superintendent Sims thinks that Dojo, a few emails, and a robocall count as parent involvement.

Don’t worry, though, because the Superintendent formed two School Advisory Councils (SAC) to fulfill the legal requirement of doing the perceived bare minimum. Those councils will conduct their first scheduled meetings on July 27th.

If you applied to be on a School Advisory Council and didn’t hear back, you’re not the only one. The word on the street is multiple people applied and were not put on either council despite both being below capacity. Two such applicants made Title IX complaints against the Superintendent, and questions were raised at the recent Board Meeting about whether the exclusions were retaliatory.

It is a good thing the Board is going through the policies because another gem I found was 108.11.1:

In practice, Board meetings take place on the second Monday of each month. It’s so fun they always keep us guessing.

The next gem I found is a policy a bit too long to include here, but it can be found on the website under policy 108.4.1. The main point of the policy is “members of the public attending the meeting are able to hear any member of the public body who speaks during the meeting.”

I like policy 108.4.1 because at one point during Monday’s meeting I couldn’t hear what Cindy Sims was saying. After asking her to repeat herself multiple times, she said, “excuse me, I’m talking to MY Board.”

She likes to call it “MY Board,” as if the Board serves her and not the citizens electing it. At the time, she was talking to the Board about an issue I raised concerning the SACs. One might think I should be permitted to hear about an issue I raised when discussed during an open meeting, but apparently not. Next meeting, I might have to bring one of those big cones to put in my ear, so I can hear better. If I knew Sign Language maybe I could request an interpreter.

Title IX Violations

The majority of the School Board seemed annoyed parents attended the meeting. They barely made eye contact with parents who spoke during public comment. Some voices were raised, mine included. An emotional parent alleged mishandling of Title IX complaints made by their child to school staff.

The parent alleged one of the principals failed to follow State statute and District policy when responding to reports of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and stalking. In response to the emotional parent’s complaint, Board President Randol Riley said, “when you put a new Administrator in place, you can’t get ‘em trained on every aspect of the job, in one year. I promise you. Cause they got too many other duties.”

Is that right Mr. Riley? Cause your own policy 116.3.1 states:

Without “exception” you say? Well, I guess there are no excuses, then. To Mr. Riley’s credit, he did say, “I’m very sorry this did happen.”

I, personally, don’t think the principal is to blame. Ultimately, “The Superintendent is held individually and directly responsible to the Board for the execution of all of its policies and for such other duties as may be assigned to him / her by the Board.” (Policy 105.2)

In case you’re wondering, Cindy Sims barely looked at the emotional parent distraught over the alleged gross mishandling of the Title IX complaint believed to have contributed to the damage the parent claimed was inflicted on their child. Cindy Sims refused to respond to the parent’s petitions for answers. Cindy did tell the emotional parent at one point to refer to her as “Doctor”, and not “Cindy”, because they “were not friends”.

Perhaps some of our emotional outcries at the meeting were heard, though. Magically, since the meeting on Monday, some of the issues raised during the emotional meeting received attention. Although our multiple email pleas to the Superintendent and Principals never yielded results, our seemingly unwanted public pleas resulted in some encouraging progress. The squeaky wheel, as they say.