Thursday, September 8, 2016

Kylene Beers: The Consequences of Inaction


"I want to pivot to the one topic that almost all candidates have failed to discuss at any length: education. Aside from sweeping statements—college will be free for all; the CCSS will be repealed; the Department of Education will be disbanded—we aren’t hearing a lot from candidates about something so critical to our democracy. Our democracy requires that all active participants be literate to the highest levels. Yet, some— politicians and parents—have come to believe that the goal of education is to make kids college or career ready.

Those two goals dismiss the fact that education should be about finding and developing one’s own personal talents. Education is about the sharing of values and tradition. Education is about developing the skills needed to fulfill one’s civic responsibilities. Education is not merely about knowing; it is about becoming. It is not best measured by a test score. It is best measured by how high children come to believe they can soar. "
(excerpt from a great essay by Kylene Beers.  Read the entire essay (from NCTE's Leading the Call) here: "The Consequences of Inaction"

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Act 46 - Is School District Consolidation Best for Our Students?

IS SCHOOL CENTRALIZATION BEST FOR OUR STUDENTS?

A Response to the ANESU Act 46 Study Committee Draft Report
Herb Olson, Nancy Cornell, and Mike Fisher - July 16, 2016

         We are members of the Addison Northeast Supervisory Union Act 46 Study Committee. Mike was appointed by the Lincoln School Board. Nancy and Herb were appointed by the Starksboro School Board. We volunteered to participate on the Committee because we believe very strongly that our students need a high quality education to succeed in an increasingly challenging world. Because Act 46 was enacted with the promise to improve quality and reduce costs, we are eager to help achieve those goals.
         Although we are members of the Act 46 Study Committee, we are not speaking on behalf of the Committee. Rather, we are speaking as a minority of the Committee, and as community members and taxpayers.
         We want to acknowledge the hard work of the Study Committee in producing the draft Report, which will be discussed at a Community Forum and All Boards Meeting on Monday, July 18th at the Lincoln Elementary School. We urge as many people as possible to attend and offer their perspectives on the proposal being made by a Majority of the members of the Study Committee, which is that our schools be centralized under the authority of a Superintendent with greater powers and control over our schools.
         We have no doubt as to the sincerity and good intentions of the Study Committee Majority that produced the draft Report. With regret, at this time we cannot support the draft Report. There is still time to change direction, but to do so it will be helpful if community members request that an alternative solution to school governance be seriously explored:
1.     Centralization will not have a significant impact on taxes.
         It would be wonderful if the solution to high property taxes were as simple as centralizing our schools, as advocated by some folks in Montpelier, and as proposed in the Study Committee’s draft Report. Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet to remedy this difficult and long-standing problem.
         Act 46 offers 4 years of tax incentives for districts that centralize, but the actual tax impact of those incentives are minimal: for example, in Starksboro in FY 2019, Year 1 of centralization, assuming a tax rate reduction of .08 cents in the first year, tax incentives will reduce property taxes on a $200,000 homestead by $160 (before the application of any income-sensitive tax rebates). The tax rates reductions are lowered to .06 cents, .04 cents, and .02 cents over the next 3 years. Not only are the tax savings minimal, but at the end of four years the tax incentives will go away, and unless real cost savings are achieved our property tax rates will go up to their previous, pre-incentive levels.
         The Report projects “real” cost reductions of $137,237 per year, across all 5 Towns. [1] $137,237 is approximately 0.006% of the total educational budget of $24,109,882 for the elementary schools, the middle and high school, and the Superintendent’s Office during FY 2017.[2] It seems quite clear that the draft Report’s estimated cost savings are not enough to prevent a tax increase after State incentives disappear.
         One size does not fit all schools. It may be that in other districts, without ANESU’s history of collaboration and consolidation of services, centralization would lead to greater efficiencies and economies of scale such that significant cost savings could be achieved. As the draft Report acknowledges on page7, however, the 5 Town Schools have already consolidated many of the functions where economies of scale might lower costs.
         Act 46 also promises the continuation of small schools grants, and “phantom students” grants for schools that centralize. Those grants are supported by State taxes, however. They are not “free”. They are simply paid by all of us through a different tax source, and therefore should not be counted as a real savings for our towns.
         Of course any reduction in taxes, however temporary and limited, would be welcome. The immediate question is whether the reduction is significant enough to outweigh some important concerns about centralization (see below). The larger question is whether these temporary reductions will become a distraction from the profound challenge, in an environment of declining student population, of devising an education funding system and funding levels that people can accept as worthwhile.
2.     Centralization is unlikely to have a significant impact on education quality.
         The Committee’s draft Report envisions a high quality education for our students, but merely hoping for a better future is not enough. The draft Report does little to show what it is about school centralization that will achieve education quality and equity.
         The draft Report talks about improving equity and quality in education programs among the 5 elementary schools, but sense our is that most families are not terribly concerned about whether Beeman offers a significantly better education than Robinson School, or whether Bristol Elementary offers a better education than Lincoln. Our sense also is that families are generally satisfied with our teachers in terms of their expertise and dedication.
         The draft Report also does not adequately acknowledge the important programs and activities underway right now to improve the quality of education.
         We firmly believe that our community and educational leaders need to set appropriately high standards and expectations if we are to make real progress in improving the quality of education for our students. The equity and quality goal should be to offer the best education we can, not merely to ensure that each elementary school offers the same programs. Missing from the draft Report is any discussion of how our schools compare to some of the best schools in the State,[3] and what should be done to raise the quality of education for our children to this higher standard.
          The draft Report raises an interesting point with respect to education quality in noting that centralization will allow the Superintendent to spend less time on school board meetings, and more time on education programs and leadership. While we agree that our decision-making process can be improved, we have several concerns with this line of thinking. First, our recent experience has been that centralized control under a powerful Superintendent is not such a great idea if we cannot trust the Superintendent to act in students’ best interests. Second, this seems more of a management problem than a governance structure problem. The draft Report estimates that under our existing system the Superintendent spends 85% of his or her time on local school board activities, with the hope that if our schools and boards are centralized this can be reduced to 50% of the Superintendent’s time.[4] In our mind even 50% of the Superintendent’s time and compensation is too valuable to allocate to only one of many other important educational and administrative functions. Imagine the CEO of a large corporation spending 85% or 50% of her or his time on the corporation’s Board of Directors activities – a recipe for bankruptcy or a shareholder revolt! A change in management structure might be far more productive for improving education quality than a change in governance structure.
                  Providing “substantial equity in the quality and variety of educational opportunities statewide” is a critical goal of Act 46. [5] We applaud Act 46 for setting this goal by speaking of statewide equity and quality as the appropriate reference point. This is not an easy problem, however. We have seen numerous initiatives to improve the quality of education over the years. Act 60 offered equity in school funding as the road to education quality. The Common Standards were an excellent attempt to articulate very high expectations for students and schools. As for the draft Report, the latest new initiative, it is not enough to just say that if we give the Superintendent more power and an easier board schedule our students will magically receive “substantial equity in the quality and variety of educational opportunities statewide”.
3.     Our students benefit from schools with strong relationships to families and the community.
         In the statewide discussions concerning Act 46 and whether to centralize our schools, the proponents of centralization typically talk about the virtues of a modern, centralized school system versus an archaic system of “local control”. We see the issue rather as a question of what system of school governance will be best for our students: (1) a larger, centralized system conferring greater power and control to a Superintendent; or (2) the current system where local boards have a direct and close relationship with the community; or (3) an alternative governance structure that addresses areas that need improvement without jettisoning what is good about the current system.
         Our personal belief is that the local community relationship with its school is a unique and extremely valuable feature of the Vermont community that will be diminished if school centralization were to happen. These strong community relationships support schools and students and families at a personal level, and also support schools when budgets are considered. But don’t take our word for it! Listen to our neighbors who offered comments on the Committee’s Survey:
“I do not believe in a "one size fits all" mentality and I think that centralization, unification would likely lead to a lack of responsiveness to individual students and communities. [6]
 “I am very much against taking school control out of the local setting and putting it in the hands of people far removed from our local community.”[7]
“Act 46 threatens both our schools and the vitality of each ASESU community. To respond to the goals of each student, each school has to design programs that fits the purposes students discover through experience in their schools, not the general aims adopted by a large district or agency that may not actually help any individual move toward adult independence. Large-scale education policy, created by people with no common vision, often overlooks the powerful resources within the community, as well as the energetic drive that each of us feels when we are developing skills and talents that take us where we want to go, not where some administrative group tells us to go.”[8]
“Larger school and single board means less accountability and transparency and less connection between schools and the community.”[9]
“Not clear to me that a simplified governance is a good thing. The governance model used in the past led to disastrous results for the whole 5-town community.[10]
“While I understand there are potential benefits, I do not see many of them coming to fruition in the ways our legislators want. I am much more concerned with the losses on the local level than with any possible benefits.”[11]
“I would be concerned about the funds from all the schools being controlled by one Board and making sure that each school gets the correct share and amounts needed to support their school.”[12]
“I used to feel that people clamoring for local control were just unprogressive and afraid of change. After watching the miasma that has developed in Montpelier in the last 30 years, I have zero interest in giving them more control.”[13]
“I'm not only a District taxpayer, but also an employee of one of the town school districts. My personal experience is that communication pathways suffer when operations are "centralized." Decisions are made at the District level, but are not clearly communicated to staff at the individual schools. I've seen this happen in the areas of technology and special education.”[14]
“Highest concern is that the needs of the students will become even more lost. Unification seems to serve the needs of the town, governing bodies, taxpayers, and losses sight of the fact that children, more than ever before, need an enriching and positive, calm and small family like community in which to learn and grow.”[15]
“The essential and historical character of Vermont is centered around each individual Town, and it seems that there are ways to protect and cherish that heritage and legacy, rather than trying to impose a "New York City" perspective.”[16]
“Given that community ownership, pride and involvement in its local school is the most important determining factor in a school’s success every effort should be made to maintain that!”[17]
“I understand the need/desire to simplify decision making, but when this united structure comes at a cost to person students' growth and education, it is concerning.”[18]
“I would like to see a proposal that seriously addresses cost and equity issues, but hopefully does retain some autonomy at the town level.”[19]
“I'm not convinced this move will actually be beneficial. Schools need to be accountable for results. Moving authority further away from individual schools does not give schools the decision making authority they need to execute policies that are efficacious at the student teacher level.”[20]
         Of course, not all people feel this way. Many people agree with the sentiments expressed in the Study Committee’s draft Report, and feel that the potential benefits of centralization outweigh the cost in terms of the loss of a strong community-school relationship. The important point, however, as articulated in the above comments, is that we lose something valuable with centralization, even if we might disagree as to how valuable it is. Before we jump in we need to be sure that the trade-off is worth it. 
4.     We can do better: an alternative vision for education in the 5 Towns.
         Too often the Act 46 discussion is compressed into a simplistic “either/or” choice. Either we decide to centralize our schools, or we do nothing. We truly believe that an alternative governance structure can be developed that addresses key concerns with the current system, while retaining those features of the current system that are important and valuable.
         From listening to others, and based on our own observations, right now decision-making seems to be more difficult and cumbersome than it needs to be. We can envision transferring many decisions to the Central Office where it has greater expertise and resources than the local board. We can also envision clearly delineating roles and responsibilities between the Superintendent and the local boards, so energy can be focused on implementing useful policies and programs.
         As to what should be retained at the local level, there must be a meaningful role for the local community. Without a meaningful role in governance the community-school relationship will be significantly diminished. We want to hear from our friends and neighbors just what that “meaningful role” should be. Perhaps the local community should have a direct employment relationship with the elementary school Principal, both to preserve communications and responsiveness to families and students, and as an institutional check and balance with a more powerful Superintendent and district board. Perhaps the local community should retain some voting role in establishing the budget for the elementary school.
         Other possibilities can be envisioned. Some community members have suggested merger of our 5 Town schools with those of neighboring, recently merged districts such as Addison Central or Champlain Valley. The thought is that a merger with a larger district with lower costs and higher quality (both assumptions would need to be carefully examined) might be worth some diminishment of the local community-school relationship.
                  Unfortunately, thoughtful consideration of an alternative governance structure for our schools was short-circuited relatively early in the Study Committee process. We attribute this to several factors: (i) our Committee Consultant was a strong advocate of centralization, and an active opponent of alternative governance structures; (ii) when guidance was sought from the Agency of Education, the responses clearly favored the “preferred option” of centralization; and (iii) after Town Meeting votes in March, when several neighboring districts agreed to centralize, many Committee members felt that centralization was inevitable, and maybe the only feasible option.
         An alternative governance structure is most certainly feasible. Act 46 acknowledges that centralization “may not be possible or the best model to achieve Vermont’s education goals in all regions of the State.”[21] As Representative David Sharpe made clear in his letter to the Act 46 Committee: “I have committed myself to working with communities who propose governance structures that they believe best supports their schools in meeting the goals of Act 46 even if those proposals vary from the structure laid out in the law. I will do my best to clear up inconsistencies in the law to support our community.”
         We still have time and the opportunity to develop a school governance structure that works best for our students. We urge the community to make their voices heard in this important conversation.
Herb Olson
401-829-1678
Nancy Cornell
802-453-2681

Mike Fisher
802-989-9806



[1] Draft Report, page 38.
[2] Draft Report page 35.
[3] E.g. Champlain Valley High School, and the Williston and Shelburne elementary and middle schools.
[4] Draft Report page 9.
[5] Act 46, Section 2(1).
[6] Study Committee Survey, page 7.
[7] Study Committee Survey, page 3.
[8] Study Committee Survey, page 3-4.
[9] Study Committee Survey, page 4.
[10] Study Committee Survey, page 7.
[11] Study Committee Survey, page 7.
[12] Study Committee Survey, page 8.
[13] Study Committee Survey, page 8.
[14] Study Committee Survey, page 10.
[15] Study Committee Survey, page 10.
[16] Study Committee Survey, page 16.
[17] Study Committee Survey, page 18.
[18] Study committee Survey, page 18.
[19] Study Committee Survey, page 18.
[20] Study Committee Survey, page 20.
[21] Act 46, Section 5(c).

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Supporting and Coaching Principals - How Central Office Administrators Can Help


In this Research for Better Teaching article, author/consultant Jon Saphier and Massachusetts superintendent Pia Durkin say a key missing link in school improvement is the effective supervision and evaluation of principals. Their theory of action: When principals are supervised well, they get better at improving classroom teaching, which leads directly to higher student achievement.

Please note: A summary of this article can be found in issue 643 of The Marshall Memo, an excellent resource for educators.