In a stunning development that has left the Des Moines community reeling, the local school board has just greenlit a two-year deal for an interim leader, stepping in right after a major scandal involving the previous superintendent. But here's where it gets controversial—how did things spiral so quickly, and what does this mean for the future of education in Iowa's biggest and most varied school district? Let's dive into the details and unpack what happened, making sure even newcomers to this story can follow along easily.
Just over a week ago, on October 9, the Des Moines School Board held a brief emergency meeting and unanimously voted to appoint Matt Smith, a seasoned 49-year-old educator, as the interim superintendent for the next two years. This decision came hot on the heels of the shocking arrest of the district's former chief, Ian Roberts, who was detained by immigration officials on September 26 while heading to a school event. Roberts faced a deportation order issued in 2024, and as we'll explore, this wasn't the only revelation that emerged in the days that followed.
Smith isn't new to the role—he's been part of the Des Moines Public Schools (DMPS) family since 2010, starting out as the principal at North High School before climbing to associate superintendent in 2018. His new contract, which stretches through the 2026-27 academic year, comes with a base salary of $286,716, according to the district's official announcement. Board Chair Jackie Norris praised Smith in that release, calling him 'an experienced leader who has shown his unwavering commitment and passion for our students and the whole Des Moines community.' She added that he brings not just steadiness but also the vibrant energy needed to guide DMPS, especially as a key figure in their ambitious Reimagining Education initiative.
Under the board's pre-approved succession strategy, Smith seamlessly took over as interim superintendent right after Roberts' arrest made headlines. Interestingly, this marks his second stint in this temporary position. Back in 2022, he filled in for then-Superintendent Tom Ahart, who stepped down amid criticism for how he managed the district during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ahart's approach drew fire for decisions that some felt didn't adequately protect students and staff, highlighting the high-stakes nature of leadership in times of crisis.
For the past couple of years, Smith has been at the forefront of DMPS's Reimagining Education and Reinvigorating Schools plan—a comprehensive overhaul aimed at boosting student retention and academic success. Think of it as a fresh start for the district: the plan includes shutting down three underperforming schools, constructing a brand-new elementary building, expanding full-day preschool for 4-year-olds, and introducing more interactive, hands-on learning experiences to make education more engaging and effective. These changes are designed to address challenges like declining enrollment and uneven outcomes, ensuring every child gets a fair shot at thriving. For beginners wondering why this matters, imagine a school system that's not just teaching facts but actively adapting to keep kids excited and supported—it's like giving the district a much-needed tune-up to better serve its diverse student body.
To fund much of this transformation, residents within DMPS boundaries will vote on November 4 about a $265 million general obligation bond. This is essentially a type of loan backed by the district's taxing power, where voters decide if the school system can borrow money to cover construction costs. For it to pass, at least 60% of voters need to say yes—a high bar that reflects the importance of community buy-in for such big investments. And this is the part most people miss: while bonds like this can lead to modernized schools and better resources, they also mean potential tax increases for homeowners. Is it worth it for long-term benefits, or does it burden families already stretched thin? That's a debate worth having.
The district's turmoil began with Roberts' arrest, which uncovered a web of undisclosed issues. The Guyana-born educator, hired in 2023, turned out not to be a U.S. citizen and had been working without proper authorization since at least 2020. He also fabricated parts of his academic background and failed to mention prior charges related to firearms, plus that 2024 deportation order. Shockingly, Roberts claimed American citizenship on the forms used for background checks at both the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners (BOEE) and DMPS. Before he resigned, the BOEE yanked his Iowa administrator license, and the school board put him on administrative leave. This raises eyebrows about oversight—how could such details slip through, especially in a role overseeing thousands of students? It's a reminder of why thorough vetting is crucial in education, and it sparks questions about accountability in hiring practices.
As for what's next, the district's announcement didn't specify when they'll start hunting for a permanent replacement for Roberts. In the meantime, Smith brings solid credentials: a Bachelor of Science in secondary education from Baylor University, a Master of Education in educational leadership from Sam Houston State University, and early teaching experience at Texas's Aldine Independent School District starting in 1999. In his own words from the release, 'Des Moines Public Schools has not just been a job for me, it’s the place I trust with the education of my own children. The care and love our teachers and staff have for every student who walks through our doors is a daily inspiration to me.' It's a personal touch that underscores his deep roots in the community.
This whole saga has stirred up plenty of discussion— from the ethics of Roberts' hiring to the wisdom of the bond proposal. Some might argue the board acted swiftly to restore stability, while others could point out missed red flags that led to this mess. What do you think: Was the decision to appoint Smith the right move, or should there have been more scrutiny into Roberts' background from the start? Do you support the Reimagining Education plan and the bond vote, or see it as an unnecessary expense? Share your opinions in the comments below—we'd love to hear differing views and keep the conversation going!
