The Fix is In

Without additional comment...

Corbett's education chief changes PSSA testing rules for charter schools without federal approval

From: The Morning Call October 5, 2012

"A review of PSSA math and reading scores shows charter schools outperformed traditional public schools in 2012.  That's because state Education Secretary Ron Tomalis, at the behest of charter school advocates, changed the testing rules in a way that makes it easier for charter schools to meet state benchmarks."

The new method is less stringent than the standards that must be met by traditional public schools, and which until this year were also applied to charter schools. As a result, 44 of the 77 charter schools that PDE has recently classified as having made AYP for 2011-12 in fact fell short of the targets for academic performance that other public schools had to meet, some even declining in proficiency percentages rather than making gains.

But the change Tomalis quietly instituted was done so without receiving the required approval from the federal Department of Education.

Assessing Multiple Measures

If you follow education news at all these days, it’s hard to avoid hearing about “multiple measures” - usually in the context of developing teacher evaluation tools, but sometimes as another way of assessing student “achievement” (a discussion for another day).  There appears to be a consensus that multiple measures are a good thing, but why?

The idea seems reasonable to most people, but there’s good reason to examine it more closely.

The argument for multiple measures - which, obviously and importantly, are far more time-consuming and expensive to produce than say, a single, standardized test - is that no one has confidence that any single measure will accurately capture what it is that we're trying to “assess”; in this case, teacher "effectiveness".

It would be one thing if each of the measures in the current PDE proposal addressed a particular aspect of so-called “effectiveness”. If that were the case, you would have a potentially useful way of determining that a teacher is strong in one area, but less so in another. But no one is saying that. Instead, PDE appears to be wishfully-thinking that the shortcomings of one measurement tool will somehow cancel out the shortcomings of another. I should note that the law of GIGO (garbage-in, garbage-out) has not been repealed.

Multiple measures are of no value if the individual measures don't measure anything useful!

The fallacy of this thinking is demonstrated by the fact that where similar “multiple measures” have been used in pilot studies, it is not at all uncommon for an individual teacher to move forty percentile points up or down the scale from one year to the next. If you’re a teacher whose job is on the line, that’s somewhat disconcerting.  Not good for morale.

In addition to standardized student test scores (never designed or validated for the purpose of evaluating teachers, and which, at best, measure only a tiny sliver of what we’d like students to know), PDE has also proposed including comprehensive principal observations (still in the early stages of development), as well as building-level data such as attendance and graduation rates. (!!)

I’ve already discussed the absurdity of the latter, so clearly ‘principal observations’ have the most potential. But the occasional “drive-by” observation – the traditional approach – is what everyone is complaining about. Which suggests that if we’re going to do this right, principals would have to spend a lot more time in the classroom. Where’s that time going to come from? And even if it was possible to adequately train every principal in the country, you could never completely eliminate subjectivity (the reason for multiple measures) or the potential for abuse (although I’m sure that never happens.)  So you really do need multiple measures.

But wouldn’t it be nice if there was a set of such measures that produced useful results (i.e., helped teachers to improve their practice), and wasn’t prohibitively expensive? Here’s a suggestion, courtesy of Ilana Garon:

1. Professional observations (i.e., principals)
2. Peer-to-peer observations (other teachers)
3. Teaching portfolios
4. Student work
5. Ask the kids (who provide surprisingly reliable and useful information)

Montgomery County has successfully developed a teaching evaluation system based on similar principles. A huge benefit of such an approach is that it avoids the punitive mind-set that is so counter-productive to - well, teacher effectiveness!  Having strong teacher participation produces a sense of ownership and helps ensure that the process works. I’m waiting to hear a good reason why it wouldn’t.

Now, what? reprised

Regular readers will recognize the reference to Beetle Bailey, and General Halftrack's catch phrase when faced with the bizarre and inexplicable.

To what am I referring? Well, it could be one of several things, but I’ve already talked about Pennsylvania’s new teacher evaluation plan, so let's begin today with the Corbett administration's recent decision to place a moratorium on the PlanCon process.

There is just no way to say this politely: this decision is hare-brained on almost every conceivable level.

“PlanCon” is the procedure that school districts must follow if they want to receive partial state reimbursement for school construction projects. In State College, that amounts to about 9% of construction costs; in many districts, that number is considerably higher. It makes no economic sense for a school district to do a construction project of any significance without access to PlanCon funding.

At a time when architects and construction companies are looking for work – thereby creating a highly favorable bid environment - and interest rates are at historic lows, it’s nearly impossible to imagine a better scenario for undertaking a school construction project. It’s good for the economy because it “creates jobs” and it’s good for taxpayers because, well, it saves money!  

But our Governor didn’t want to put the funding for PlanCon reimbursement into this year’s budget. Keep in mind that this won’t save any money in the long run; in fact, it only puts these expenditures off until later, at a significantly greater cost. Buildings will still have to be built or renovated, and in the meantime, districts will have to deal with the additional expense of replacing boilers, fixing roofs, and paying the high energy costs associated with pre-“oil-crisis-era” construction.

This is government at its dysfunctional worst.

On the other hand, I could be referring to the recently enacted legislation regarding school superintendents – another in a series of legislative initiatives that may appear reasonable until you look closely. This is becoming a pattern..

The new law requires that superintendent contracts now include "objective performance standards" mutually agreed upon by the school board and the superintendent. How that provision will be enforced is a mystery to me – how does one penalize duly elected public officials, and what precedent would this set if we applied the same logic to our representatives at the federal and state levels?

But more importantly, this requirement reflects a profound lack of understanding of the responsibilities of upper management in any organization, and how one effectively evaluates the discharge of those responsibilities. For example, how does one objectively determine whether the superintendent has implemented strategies to ensure fiscal stewardship?  Or developed leadership capacity within the organization? Or established a process for aligning and updating curriculum? Or effectively communicated with the community?

Allow me to point out that merely assigning a number value to any of these goals in no way makes that evaluation ‘objective’. But that’s a point probably lost on legislators.

In addition, superintendent eligibility previously required a graduate degree in educational administration, and at least six years of education experience. But under recently passed House Bill 1307, that’s no longer necessary: anyone with a degree in business, management or law can now become a school superintendent.   

A superintendent is - or should be - the educational leader of a school system: at a minimum, he or she should know what it’s like to have been inside a classroom! - just as the head of your business office should be someone with experience and expertise in school finance. This change makes sense only if you believe that becoming an excellent educator requires no specialized knowledge or training.

Which is precisely what many politicians apparently have come to believe about teachers; perhaps that explains their thinking.

The "Attack on Public Education"

Several months ago I noted that we appeared about to re-argue an issue that for 150 years had been considered settled: whether a free public education is a public good, an essential foundation of a democratic society. Since then, it has become increasingly apparent that the “attack on public education” is not hyperbole; we are in the midst of a serious debate with enormous implications.

The root of this attack has recently become clearer to me, and it goes back at least a generation: the issue is whether or not our students should be taught how to think for themselves. 

The Texas Republican Party has helped clarify this by actually taking a stand against the teaching of critical thinking skills. From their 2012 platform: “we oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills, critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student's fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”

While the Texas GOP has since tried to walk-back from their statement, it strikes me as a classic example of a political “gaff”, defined as when a politician accidentally tells the truth.  At least Rick Santorum has the courage of his convictions. He’s been very clear: he believes that exposing young minds to new ideas is dangerous.

And to be fair, he has a point. The term “sophomoric” describes the phenomenon of second-year college students, recently exposed to new ways of thinking, who suddenly think they’re smarter than everyone else. There is also a long tradition in American culture that values “small-town common sense” (epitomized by “Andy of Mayberry” – see “The Sheriff Who Gave Stature to Small-Town Smarts”) and is skeptical of the arrogance of “big-city slickers” and academics.

As one who lives in a college town, I can tell you that this skepticism is not entirely misplaced.

Of course, there’s always the risk that if you start to teach kids to think for themselves, they might come to their own conclusions. Ironically, the antidote is to have students develop some critical-thinking skills before they get to college. Then they wouldn’t be so easily swayed by every new idea that comes along. Besides, if your “truth” – whatever it is - is so powerful, you would think that it could withstand a bit of scrutiny. The problem is when the foundation of one’s belief  system is a parental “because I said so”.  That’s a house built on sand. 

The other problem with this line of thinking is that, as a practical matter, we no longer have a choice about this. In less than a generation, the routine factory jobs that required minimal thinking – but which used to support a middle-class lifestyle - have vanished.  If we fail to develop in this generation of students the capacity to be creative, critical-thinkers, they will not succeed in the new economy.  (And they’ll be in no position to subsidize our old age!)

Neither will they have the skills to be effective citizens, in which case we will have missed the point entirely. When Ben Franklin proposed establishing public schools in Pennsylvania it was for “the purpose of creating citizens who can make wise political decisions.”

At the risk of over-generalization, it seems to me that there are currently three schools of thought concerning the state of public education. 

1. Those who never liked the idea in the first place, and are looking for an excuse to dismantle it;
2. Those who want to ‘reform’ education by institutionalizing a mid-20^th century mindset that no longer works – in my opinion, the true ‘defenders of the status quo’;  and,
3. Those who think we desperately need to have a conversation about what public education should look like in the 21^st-century. Until ‘the defenders of public education’ unite around a clear articulation of that vision, we will continue to find ourselves playing defense.

Sounds reasonable…

But it’s not.

There seems to be a lot of this going around these days: ideas that seem reasonable on the surface (especially if you’re not really paying attention, which most people are not) but upon close examination are deeply counter-productive, or worse.

To cite an example I’ve used before: a change in the implementation of the Keystone exams that will allow students to take the exam in the same year they take the course, rather than making them wait until their junior or senior year.  Of course that’s reasonable! – and everyone patted themselves on the back accordingly for making the change.

But here’s my question: was what those students learned in their freshman Biology course important, or wasn’t it?  If it really is important – so important that it’s required for graduation – shouldn’t students still remember and be able to use it two years later?  Otherwise, what was the point?  This is the message we appear to be sending to students: memorize as much of this stuff as you can, regurgitate it as quickly as possible, and then forget it so you can go on to the next thing.  This is learning?

And now to the more current example: last week the PA House unanimously (!) passed compromise legislation - compromise is good, no? -  that establishes a new system for evaluating public school employees that uses student performance as a rating factor.

Sound reasonable?  Let’s look at some details. “For non-teaching professional employees, the bill requires 20% of their overall rating to be based on student performance.”

So to be clear: how well the school’s students do on their PSSAs will be 20% of the evaluation for school nurses, guidance counselors, etc.. Are you kidding me?  (Think Lewis Black as you read this.) Could they not come up with anything less relevant?

Here’s another detail: For teachers, the bill requires 50% of their rating to be based on student performance; 15% of which will be based on building level data, including things such as the PSSAs, the school’s graduation rate and AP course participation. By what shred of logic should individual teachers be evaluated based on the performance of students they have never met?

Allow me to make a point that should be obvious: teachers in schools that have the resources to offer more AP classes, and where the graduation rate is consistently in the upper 90s (such as State College) are therefore, by definition better teachers than those that teach in more challenging circumstances?

Let’s consider the unintended  (one would hope!) consequences. You’re a teacher looking for a job.  You have a choice: A) you can work in a ‘good’ school, where you are relatively well-paid, the students are relatively focused on learning, and where you are more likely to receive good evaluations – based on overall school performance - resulting in greater job security, or B) you can work in a struggling school, for less pay, where your job evaluation will be pulled down by the school’s overall test scores and you are at risk of being fired every year.  Where would you go?

Just as importantly, school A has ten applicants for every position, while school B has to take whoever they get.  Needless to say, the primary difference between school A and school B is the relative wealth of the respective communities. Under this proposal, we are institutionalizing a scheme in which the rich continue to get richer…

I haven’t even addressed the issue of statistical reliability.  (Does no one understand statistics?)  Based on the evidence so far, the use of student ‘achievement’ data results in wild fluctuations in individual teacher evaluations from year to year. We might be better off using a dartboard – at least then, the randomness would be apparent to everyone.

What will be the impact on teacher morale of this nonsense – and what will be the impact of that, on the kids?  Finally, is there anyone – anyone? – who believes the PSSAs measure more than a tiny sliver of what is important in student learning?

This proposal is either A) dumb as rocks, or B) an incredibly devious and dishonest attack on the very idea of public education. Honestly, I am somewhat torn between the two options. (As they used to say, “just because you’re paranoid…”)

p.s. One other provision of this legislation would permit non-education professionals to be school superintendents. Now, there’s a swell idea.

Are computers really necessary?

When 'old-timers' - that is, people of my age -  say "we didn’t have computers when I was in school, and I turned out fine", they have a point.  That’s why it’s necessary for educators to explain why the education we remember is not adequate for today’s students.

It is also important to understand that a "21st-century" education is not really about technology. Technology is only a tool; a means to an end. More than one school district has spent a fair sum buying new computers, only to have them sit in classrooms, collecting dust.  If access to new technologies doesn’t provoke us to fundamentally re-think the teaching and learning experience, they’re not worth the investment.

So it is important to understand how technology allows us to do things in the classroom that we couldn’t do before - and why that matters. That was the opportunity that several members of the school board had on a recent visit to State High.

For members of the public who have not stepped inside a classroom in decades, this would be enlightening, and would hopefully jump-start a community-wide conversation concerning the direction of public education.

Perhaps the most significant way that education has changed (or rather, needs to change) is that it has become less about the consumption of information - which, in the information age, is not nearly as important as it once was - and more about what you can do with that information. As one teacher put it, we’re seeing s shift from "content" to "analysis."

Educators and employers have identified a set of "21st-century skills" that today’s students will need in order to be successful. The list includes critical-thinking, collaboration, broad communication skills, civics and creativity. What technology does is make it possible, or at least considerably easier, to incorporate that set of skills into the student learning experience.

As one teacher described it: we need to see computers not as "consumption" machines, but as “creation” machines.

A high school English teacher decided it was important to expand the concept of what it means to be an effective communicator beyond the "5-paragraph essay" - which is all that many high school students learn to do. So she incorporated live performance and the creation of 30-second Public Service Announcements into her college writing course.

Consider the higher-order communication skills that a performer must have in order to connect with an audience on both an emotional and intellectual level. (For me, it also validated the idea that the arts can be infused throughout the curriculum, not just as stand-alone courses.)

And consider the skills one has to learn in order to produce an effective PSA. Of course, technical editing skills are useful, but more importantly, this project requires that you grab someone's attention and make your point in 15-30 seconds. (As Mark Twain  said, "I would have written a shorter letter, but I didn’t have the time.")  A record of these kinds of experiences, in a digital portfolio, provide a much fuller picture of student achievement than the results of standardized testing.

Another teacher took advantage of on-line resources to stimulate classroom  deliberations on current events.

Several classes demonstrated how technology has made it easier to work on group projects, and how those projects were of higher quality, and more in depth as a result – and required collaborative skills the students will surely need in college and the workplace.  It is also far easier for students to comment on and critique each other's work, which 1) makes the writing more authentic, because the teacher is not the only one who will read it, and 2) with the students acting as "teachers" their learning becomes more ingrained.

But the value of the teacher’s input is also increased. Use of the Googledocs technology allows for more frequent and timely teacher input: revisions and feedback that used to take a week or more can now happen prior to the next day’s class.

Clearly, this requires that teachers adjust from their traditional role to one of "co-collaborators".  That’s not easy to do, so one theme we heard repeatedly was the necessity of quality professional development. You have to provide sufficient support and time for teachers to become comfortable with doing things differently, but the investment is both necessary and worthwhile.

Then there are the side benefits. First, a student perspective I would not have considered: "spellcheck" actually enhances good spelling, because it provides immediate feedback. And as the students told us, experiencing a subject via a virtual tour has far more impact than reading about it in a textbook.  Several students commented that it is easier to organize and edit class notes.

In my mind, it's no longer a question of whether technology should be incorporated into the classroom, but what’s the most effective and efficient way to do it.

"Bully"

The recent release of "Bully" and the controversy over its initial "R" rating (it was eventually released "unrated") has sparked a national conversation over bullying in school. Putting aside the absurdity of the MPAA rating, I’d like to talk about the movie itself, and where we might go from here.

First, the movie is worth seeing. It is an excellent portrayal of what bullying looks like from the perspective of students. It also does a nice job of showing how clueless adults can be, adults within the school system in particular. You can imagine how frustrating that is to both affected students and parents.

It’s probably too much to ask, but where I think the movie falls short is in solutions, which don’t get much beyond insisting that the school, and the public at large, face up to the issue. While that’s a good start, it highlights the shortcomings of traditional anti-bullying efforts: they tend to be reactive, with the focus typically on changing the behavior of the “bully”.  Not enough attention is paid to the behavior of the bystanders, nor on the overall climate of the school. 

By contrast, a comprehensive “school climate” approach is pro-active. The emphasis is on developing a sense of community, including behavioral expectations, that make bullying less likely to occur in the first place. It is important that we address the random, casual disrespect that occurs in some school environments – places where bullying is likely to be taken for granted. 

Parents have to recognize that their role is critical - a key part of which is to challenge this idea that bullying is an acceptable and unavoidable part of growing up. All that bullying accomplishes is to produce schools in which all of our children will find it harder to learn.  Adults are also responsible for modeling the respect for others that we want our children to demonstrate. Bullying is a learned behavior; fortunately, so is respect.

But perhaps the most important component of developing a positive school climate is to allow the students to acquire a sense of ownership in their school. We need to move from the traditional student perception that school is something that is “done” to them to one in which students and teachers share the responsibility for their school environment. 

That’s why it is so encouraging  to hear that many of our high school students will be seeing the film in the coming weeks, following up with school-wide conversations, all initiated by the students, themselves. Hopefully, this will be the beginning of a conversation that includes all of us.

A revolt against high-stakes testing?

Perhaps it's the arrival of spring, but I'm catching a whiff of optimism in the air: there appears to be the makings of a revolt against our national obsession with high-stakes testing.  And it's originating in Texas of all places!

Even more encouraging, it's not just educators who are standing up (which begs the question: why weren't teachers consulted in the first place?); it's also parents who are beginning to say, "enough is enough!"  Some parents have gone so far as to not allow their children to take these high-stakes tests. Just saying.

Truthfully, parents were never really on board in the first place. When you ask parents what they want from their schools, they've never supported the inevitable shrinking of the curriculum that occurs when you test only a narrow band of the curriculum, place enormously high stakes on those tests, and then cut resources.

From the parents' perspective, it's not just about being prepared to get a job, either. Parents have always believed that schools should also prepare students to be citizens - the original justification for public schools, by the way  (ask Ben Franklin); to discover what interests them, and to be exposed to the arts.

In fact, with the exception of those relatively few places where the schools really are terrible, parents overwhelmingly rate their local school - the ones their kids go to; the ones where they know the teachers - "A" or "B".

It's those "other" schools that are failing. And why the public perception that our education system is failing?  Well, because everybody seems to be saying it (e.g., "Waiting for Superman"), so it must be true. Except that it's not.

When you compare the typical, reasonably financed suburban school in the United States with similar schools in "high-performing" countries elsewhere, our schools hold their own quite well, thank you. What brings our average down, so to speak, are the schools at the lower end of the equity spectrum.

Did you know that among the industrialized countries against which the U.S. compares itself on these international benchmarks, the U.S. has the highest percentage of students in poverty?
Which brings me to this question: if we're going to hold teachers accountable for student progress, shouldn't we hold politicians accountable for the environment in which that progress does, or doesn't, occur? That's what 'high-performing' Finland did.*

Instead, we hear politicians say: "We're not responsible! - it's the teachers fault!" (Well, they're right about the first part.) And while we're on the subject of politicians and accountability, shouldn't legislators be required to take these tests, themselves? And publish the scores? And then explain to us why these tests are so important?

For all the time, effort and money that are put into Pennsylvania's version of high-stakes testing (the PSSAs) the data we get from them is almost worthless. Why?  Because we don't even receive that data until six months after the student has left the class! And as limited in value as that data would be, we could get it sooner, but the Commonwealth is too cheap to pay for a quicker turnaround.  I kid you not.

Almost completely off the radar is the proposal - for which the current administration appears only too happy to allocate resources - to begin implementing the newest version of high-stakes testing, the Keystone exams, for the class of students entering 9th grade a year from now. Of the three exams that students must take, one will be Biology.

Now, I have nothing against biology, per se, but by what logic is 'proficiency' in biology elevated in importance above all the other things students could, or should be learning? How much do you remember from high school biology? How important was it, really? In order to keep your high school diploma, should you be required to periodically take the new Keystone exam?  Just asking.

This lack of coherence is an indication of what high-stakes testing really is: a political fig leaf; the sole purpose of which is to allow politicians to claim that they're 'doing something' about education.

What frustrates me is that a considerable amount of energy must be spent countering these really silly ideas, which only diverts us from the conversations we should be having, like: How do we improve the quality of teaching in the classroom and make it more consistent? What would a meaningful and useful system of assessment look like (including a serious discussion on what it is we ought to be assessing in the first place!).  Or, more fundamentally - in what important ways does education need to change in order to meet the needs of the current generation of students?

In my imagination, teachers and parents would have a big part in that conversation. Well, it's spring; hope is in the air.

*American students in schools where less than 10 percent of children live in poverty score first in the world in reading, writes Linda Darling-Hammond in The Washington Post. Our lower international standing is because high-achieving countries like Finland and Singapore have social safety nets that ensure virtually all schools have fewer than 10 percent of students living in poverty.

Comparing Apples to Oranges

A friend recently wrote to me on the subject of standardized teacher evaluations:

"Just musing, but maybe there needs to be some standardization with respect to teacher evaluations.  I am generally of the opinion that each community knows best and that standardization means more bureaucracy, but it would be nice to compare apples to apples instead of apples to oranges.  What do you think?  Please be brutally honest."

This was my reply... 

That's an excellent question. There's certainly a strong push towards developing objective, universal standards that can be used to compare teachers across districts, states, etc.

My biggest problem with this idea is that "teacher effectiveness" depends to a considerable extent on the quality of the teaching environment. Do teachers receive appropriate administrative support and training? Do they have opportunities to collaborate with and learn from more experienced teachers? (I am very much of the opinion that most good teachers are made and not born.)

Class size, and especially the students themselves vary enormously. (Are they hungry? Are they being bullied? What's going on at home?)  Is there adequate heat, light, books?  Obviously, the "climate" for teaching and learning varies considerably from school to school. Even the "effectiveness" of an individual teacher can vary significantly from year to year, depending on the students in his/her class. (Ask any teacher.) And how do you evaluate teachers when students have more than one, or enter a class mid-year, or...?

So, I am deeply skeptical that an evaluation rubric could be developed that even begins to account for all these factors. The better approach is to have teacher evaluations occur at the school/district level, where principals have been trained as "educational leaders", responsible for establishing best practices across the faculty. And rather than having teachers compete against each other, they should be developing a climate in which teachers are encouraged - and have the time - to share with each other what they have found to work, and what doesn't.

The focus should be on helping teachers to get better at what they do. As long as it's not punitive, other teachers (and even students, who can be quite good at identifying good teaching) can, and should, have significant roles in the evaluation process.  (The principal can't be everywhere.)

Those are my thoughts. Have I been brutally honest? The idea of 'standardized teacher evaluations' sounds appealing, but it's deeply wishful thinking.

A few more thoughts since then:

A recent report from the New Teacher Center emphasizes the extent to which school leadership, opportunities for teacher collaboration, and customized professional development impact teacher success - with particular significance for hard-to-staff schools. High-quality induction programs can help transform these schools into strong professional communities where educators actually want to stay and work.

A must read: Diane Ravitch's scathing criticsm of the NYC DoE decision to release its teacher evaluation data, despite its egregrious unreliability, and their explicit assurances in 2008 to the contrary.

Bill Gates, in his NYTimes editorial, was among those who pointed out that the decision was counter-productive to improving teacher effectiveness.

Also worth reading: Grading the Teachers

Anthony Cody's excellent blog:

And finally, Linda Darling-Hammond's piece in EdWeek: Value-Added Evaluation Hurts Teaching

Act 1 redux

“That makes no sense whatsoever,” said Hutchinson.

That statement begs for an explanation, which, to be honest, I was not fully prepared to give at Monday's board meeting. I did not anticipate having to defend a practice widely used by school boards in the era of Act 1, and I certainly didn't expect to have to defend the ethics /morality of that decision.

A little history on school budgeting is in order. Once upon a time, although school budgets were developed over a period of months, the actual tax rate wasn't determined until fairly late in the process - usually not until June - by which time you would have a much clearer picture of the most important factors impacting the budget, such as:
the cost of health care for the coming year
the number of retirements, and (most significantly for many districts)
the amount of the state appropriation

Then came Act 1, under which school districts are required to submit preliminary budgets when all of those numbers are no more than educated guesses, and while you are barely half-way through the current fiscal year. Act 1 also limits, by formula, the possible real estate tax increase for the coming year. For next year, that number is 1.7%.

However, for a couple of big ticket items - special education and retirement contributions - if the increase in expenses is significantly higher than the index (approximately, the rate of inflation) districts are allowed to raise taxes to cover the difference (how nice of the legislature!) on the reasonable premise that these expenses are beyond local control.

This is a fairly simple calculation for the retirement contribution rate, which is already known for next year. But your special ed budget is not so easy to predict. It is not unusual for a particularly high-needs student to unexpectedly transfer into your district, and there is a moral and legal obligation to provide that student with appropriate services, regardless of whether there is money in the budget to do so.  

So instead of permitting a district to raise taxes to pay for future special ed costs - which are unknown - this number is determined by looking backwards, essentially allowing districts to recoup expenses that have already been paid - a fairly reasonable idea in an otherwise unreasonable piece of legislation.

But there's a catch. School boards have to decide now, in January, whether or not to apply for these exemptions. Keep in mind that this merely establishes the maximum tax rate; there's no requirement that we use it. But the opposite is not true; if you don't apply for the exemptions you can't change your mind later. So the prudent course is to apply for the exemptions, maintain flexibility, let the process play itself out, and hope for a less-than-worse-case-scenario.

But to suggest that it is immoral and unethical for the district to recoup expenses that the district was legally required to make (and has already made!) makes no sense whatsoever.


p.s. I should once again point out that Act 1 is a deeply undemocratic (unethical, immoral? - who's to say?) piece of legislation.  Local citizens already had an effective way to control local school spending.  If a majority of citizens believe that their schools are in need of additonal community resources, they can elect board members who agree with them. If citizens believe that taxes are too high, they can elect people who agree with them. It's really that simple.  Why state legislators think they are a better judge of each community's values is beyond me.

And to beat the poor horse one more time, school districts are legally required to pass their budgets on time, but the state legislature, not so much.

Relationships, Relevance and Rigor

Back before I joined the school board, my first education conference was Bill Daggett’s Model Schools Conference.  He made an impression on me, as did his mantra - which he still uses: “rigor, relevance and relationships”.  A recent interview in Education Weekly gave me reason to think about it again.

It’s hard to find an education ‘reformer’ today who isn’t advocating for greater ‘rigor’ in our education curriculum - everyone seems to be calling for “higher standards”.  (It’s no surprise that not many people are calling for “lower standards”.)  The problem is that most of the rhetoric has it backwards.

As Daggett reminds us in the interview, ”relevance makes rigor possible – when students find their studies relevant, teachers can increase the rigor to meet the needs of students.”

For generations (at least) we’ve heard calls to make education more relevant. But in the decade since I first heard Daggett, a fair amount of research has been produced that backs up Daggett’s thesis.  As pointed out by John Medina in “Brain Rules”, human beings do not pay attention to boring stuff.  Allow me to repeat that:  human beings (including kids) do not learn that which is not interesting to them.

And how do we know what is interesting to kids?  Daggett’s third R, relationships.  “It’s important for educators to know their students. Educators need to know what is interesting to them… those are the ways to engage students.”

So let’s make sure we have the horse before the cart: relationships first, then relevance and rigor.  Let’s emphasize the importance of building supportive relationships throughout our school communities. (And not just student to teacher – in order to have a vibrant educational community, everyone needs to be engaged and constantly learning.)

Out of those relationships we’ll figure out how to make school relevant.  And then we’ll really be on to something.