Posts
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.
