Sigourney School Board Reviews Infrastructure Bid

SIGOURNEY – During the Feb. 14 meeting of the Sigourney School Board, the board reviewed a set of bids for the upcoming elementary infrastructure project. The board approved base bids from: Christner Contracting for the general trades portion, Modern Mechanical for mechanical work, Ace Electric for electrical work, and Trane for control and building automation. An alternate bid for a fire alarm system upgrade from Ace was also approved.

Superintendent Kevin Hatfield stated that, overall, the bids were fair. Hatfield explained that several local companies were approached with the infrastructure project, but declined due to a lack of manpower. Board member Mike Bensmiller noted that doing the fire alarms at the same time as the rest of the infrastructure project would be cheaper, because it will be easier to install when the ceilings are down. Board member Adam Clark asked if the contractors had a history of getting work done on time. Rusty Wolfe, a representative of SiteLogIQ, the company managing the infrastructure project, stated that Christner often works in the area and does good work. Hatfield and Bensmiller both stated that Modern Mechanical has a good reputation.

Hatfield stated that, while the project was planned to be carried out over two different summers, he was encouraged to find out the contractors believed they could get 90% of the work done in the first summer. He noted that the elementary school boiler is barely working. Clark asked if there was a penalty for if the contractors fail to meet the deadline. Wolfe explained that while there are no liquid damages, the contractors will have to “fork up money” if the district is inconvenienced. For example, if the district is forced to rent classroom buildings, the contractors will have to pay for them.

Also at the Wednesday meeting, the board spoke with Great Prairie AEA Chief Administrator Nathan Wood, who gave the district an overview of what services the AEAs provide and how much it costs the district. The AEAs have been admonished for “mission creep” of growing beyond their original purpose of providing special education services to Iowa schools and begun offering media and technology and educational services. Hatfield noted that this “mission creep” is due to school districts requesting more services. According to Wood, 80% of AEA work is still spent on special ed services statewide, with Sigourney spending roughly $300,000 on special ed and $30,000 on other services.

Included in special ed services provided are: screenings, evaluations and assessments for special ed students; assistive technology; audiology; occupational and physical and speech-language therapy; social work, school psychology and behavioral supports and special instruction; vision, deaf and hard of hearing services; service coordination; and support for special education teachers and administrators. The special education aspects of the AEAs are paid for by the state government.

Included in the media and technology services provided by the AEAs are: library services, including digital resource subscriptions; print and creative services; vans and delivery services; technology support; instructional technology and digital learning consultants; digital privacy and cybersecurity; and help with deficits in special education budgets. Included in the educational services provided by the AEAs are: curriculum consultants; ESSA supports; mental health supports; professional learning; and substitute teacher and paraprofessional courses and trainings. These services are paid for by local property taxes. Wood noted that the AEAs benefit from economies of scale and are able to negotiate lower prices for schools. As an example, he stated that the digital libraries the AEAs provide would cost $79 per student at retail costs, but only cost schools $4 per student due to AEA negotiations. Wood also gave names of the specific AEA agents who worked with the schools and could be affected by changes to the AEAs.

These concerns come following what Wood described as a “bomb dropped” by Governor Kim Reyndols during her Condition of the State Address in January. Reynolds’s initial proposal would have prohibited the AEAs from providing educational or media and technology services to schools, even if requested, and give schools the ability to use AEA monet to hire outside companies instead. Revised versions of that bill are currently being worked on by the Iowa Senate and House of Representatives. Wood stated that the initial bill would have “completely dismantled” the AEAs and that updated bills will still likely harm the AEAs and lead to layoffs. Hatfield noted that the district could not afford professional development training for teachers without the AEAs and that the district received 329 different AEA trainings in the previous year.

Wood stated that he did not think 3A or 4A schools in dense urban areas would be affected, but that rural schools like Sigourney will likely struggle to find outside contractors. Wood noted that AEAs are able to flexibly move specialists between districts as needed, which will be difficult for districts to do on their own.

Wood acknowledged that there are inefficiencies in how the AEAs are run. He pointed out that the leadership of the AEAs contain a lot of older employees who are content to continue doing things how they have been done historically, instead of reforming and adapting. Wood stated that House Speaker Pat Grassley had requested that he and the other AEA chiefs sign a document approving the AEA changes. Wood stated that could not, because the changes would be detrimental.

Hatfield asked Wood about the proposed statewide raises in teacher starting salary from $33,500 to $50,000. These raises were initially included in the AEA reform bill, but have since been separated. Wood stated that teachers should be paid more, but that schools will need more money from the state to afford these raises year after year. Hatfield stated that giving the money for raises for only one year would hurt districts. Wood stated that the few legislators who think like teachers are pushing for a 5.5-6% increase in State Supplemental Aid to account for the raises, but that other legislators are only pushing for 2.5-3%.

Before leaving, Wood left the board two different letters to possibly sign, one strongly opposing the AEA changes and one that raises concerns over the bill, notes that the educational services provided are essential and requests stakeholders be consulted before the bill goes forward. Board members Tim Bruns and Cody Branstad noted that, at the very least, the proposed legislative changes raised awareness of what the AEAs do. Bruns noted that he did not agree with dismantling the AEAs. Hatfield stated that the governor was not completely wrong and that the AEAs needed reform, pointing to administration salaries and inefficiencies as problems, but that the state should not just “take a hatchet” to the AEAs. Hatfield stated that hiring outside help would be costly and require coordination with other districts to get by. The board ultimately signed the second letter.

Clark brought up the fact that the Pekin and Keota school districts are looking into switching to four-day school weeks. Hatfield stated his gut feeling was that the switch was being made for adults, not kids. He explained that schools already have so much to do with children in a limited time and that he feared switching to fewer days would negatively affect learning. Hatfield noted it may help with teacher retention, but stated he would not be a proponent of something that would harm learning. Hatfield noted that figuring out what to do with children on Fridays will be a problem for parents and that a four-day week will require the entire community working together.

Bruns stated that he did not think the plan was feasible. He noted that coaches and athletics students will have to come in on Friday anyway. He noted that, for shared sports, either Sigourney will have to change times to account for other schools having longer class times, or students will have to leave classes early to make it to practices. Hatfield stated that Sigourney would not change times for shared sports with other schools.

Clark stated that he was not for or against the four-day week, but thinks the board should ask the community if they are in favor. Hatfield noted that Sigourney will be able to watch what happens at other districts first and see how their students achieve academically. Hatfield stated he had not heard of especially good results with four-day weeks. Bruns noted that, if the improvements were huge, they would have heard about them. Bruns stated that good salaries will do more to retain teachers. Bensmiller added that how you treat staff also does a lot for retention.

A parent attending the meeting requested the district look into starting a sports shooting team, noting that he had two sons interested and knew a lot of other families who were interested. Hatfield stated he loved adding programming and noted that the popularity of shooting sports was growing. The parent also requested the school begin opening the gym once or twice a week to allow students to play basketball or baseball. Hatfield noted that, under the district’s current facility policy, coaches can request to have open gym time, but must post it in advance.

The parent brought up an event he had overheard at a girls basketball game which left him disappointed in the Sigourney stands. The game was briefly paused after one student from the other team’s fingernail was torn off. According to the parent, a parent from Sigourney shouted “Good, now maybe they'll make her mouth bleed.” The mother of the injured player, who was working as a scorekeeper, was so upset she had to leave. The parent stated he was horrible and apologized on the behalf of the community. Hatfield called the situation terrible, but noted that most Sigourney fans are good.