Crisis averted?

It appears that the state legislature is about to take action that will defer the worst of the pain that was about to hit school district budgets as a result of the underfunded state pension system for school employees (PSERS).

Even more remarkably, a compromise was reached – approved in the House by an astonishing vote of 199-0 - that at least begins to address some of the long-term issues. (For new members of the state retirement plan, the “multiplier” will revert to 2% from 2.5%, vesting will occur at 10 years instead of 5, and new members would be prohibited from withdrawing lump-sum contributions at retirement.)

Although I am surprised at the speed with which this deal was struck - in the thick of the annual budget debate - I always considered it politically inevitable. There was never any possibility that the legislature would allow the 29.3% increase in the employer retirement contribution that was projected for fiscal year 2012/13 to go into effect. School boards and taxpayers would have revolted (and blamed the legislature).

More to the point, without legislative action, the Commonwealth – which is responsible for half of the employer cost of PSERS and for all of SERS – would have had a hard time producing balanced state budgets given the projected increases of 10.6%, 29.2% and 32.1%. The corresponding increases are now expected to be 8.7%,12.2%, and 16.7%. (Next year’s rate is still up in the air.)

But before we get too happy, it should be noted that under this proposal, most of the pain will be diverted until sometime after most current legislators have left office. That’s a fair criticism - but it’s not quite as bad as its being made out to be.

(a little math..)

Some of you business/finance majors will recall the concept of “present value”. In short, what that means is that $10 in your pocket today is more valuable than having it 10 years from now. The reason is that you could invest your pocket money at 2% annual interest, and in 10 years you would have about $12.20. So the “present value” of having $12.20 10 years from now is: $10.00. Of course, this calculation depends entirely on what interest rate is used.

In the case of a school district that is likely to borrow hundreds of millions of building construction dollars over the coming decades, the better analogy is this: having 10 dollars in your pocket today is 10 dollars you won’t have to borrow. Assuming a conservative borrowing rate of 4%, $10 today is worth $14.80 ten years from now – and $30.80 thirty years from now.

What are the implications? The proposed changes to the retirement contribution rate would result in districts spending considerably less in the “near years”, but considerably more in the out years. When you add up all the numbers, under this legislation, State College could end up spending an additional $44 million dollars in retirement costs over the next 30 years.

But that doesn’t take into account present value. When you do the math, assuming a conservative 4% borrowing rate, the difference between the savings in the early years and the additional costs in the out years is about $3.3 million in 2041 dollars, or about $1 million in current dollars. (I did this by converting each year’s savings/costs into 2041 dollars, and adding them up.)

It’s not $44 million, but a million dollars is still real money. With a little more “front-loading” we might have broken even.

Alert Citizens ... and the Budget

I appreciate that the Centre Daily Times thought to print a couple of the on-line comments concerning their story on the property tax refunds that were recently awarded to the Village at Penn State.

One writer wondered how it was possible that said property could be assessed for less than it cost to build it.

Another got more to the point: "Why would Penn State ever pay its fair share of taxes?"

I feel compelled to say: it has ever been thus. (Recall SCASD's ill-fated attempt in 1997 to tax the profit-making components of the Penn State empire? A futile effort, to be sure.)

The obvious should be noted, however: the difference comes directly out of your pocket, dear taxpayer.

But it's good to see that someone's paying attention.


About the budget..

For a process that resulted in over $3.4 million in cuts, I thought the development of next year's budget went remarkably smoothly. And considering that my only significant disagreement represents less than 1% of that total, it can't be considered more than a quibble. However...

The $30,000 in question represents the required school supplies that the district will no longer provide to elementary school students.

My first argument against eliminating this from the budget is that there won’t be any actual "savings" - more accurately, this is a cost-shift from district taxpayers to parents. In fact, since the district can buy supplies in bulk, parents will end of spending more, in total, than the district would have. Not to mention the environmental impact of a couple of thousand additional trips to Wal-Mart. (Though I suppose one could argue that this would be a stimulus to the local economy..)

Second, although the amount involved is modest, there will be a few families for whom this will be a hardship. Since it has long been our practice that 'inability to pay' should not be a barrier to students, making sure that doesn’t happen will become an administrative chore for somebody.

Finally, there's the philosophical argument: If the community has a civic obligation to provide an education to its children - which it does, both constitutionally, and, I believe, morally - that ought to include required supplies.

For what it's worth.

A framework for a 21st-century education

So what is the framework for a 21st-century education? As it happens, for the past eight years a group of business leaders and educators known as the Partnership for 21st Century Skills has been working on this very question. (You will note some real heavyweights on this list.) Here’s a synopsis of what they've come up with.  

Their work is based on the growing recognition that a mastery of course content (such as is measured by your typical standardized test) is no longer sufficient for success in the 21st century. This is because most of the jobs - including, increasingly, many 'white collar' jobs - that used to be the gateway to a successful middle-class life involve routine work that has, or will soon be, automated, computerized or out-sourced.

So the next generation of graduates will need more than mastery of the ‘3 Rs”. When the Partnership asked employers which skills should receive additional emphasis in school, this is what they heard: Economy
•    The ability to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing 89%
•    Critical Thinking/Analytical Reasoning Skills 81%
•    The ability to apply knowledge and skills to real-world settings 79%
•    The ability to analyze and solve complex problems 75%
•    The ability to connect actions to ethical decisions 75%

Similarly, another survey, referring specifically to high school graduates, identified these deficiencies:
•    Written Communication 81%
•    Leadership 73%
•    Work Ethic 70%
•    Critical Thinking & Problem Solving 70%
•    Self-Direction 58%

This lead the Partnership to identify the following framework of essential thinking skills (the “four C’s”)
•    Critical thinking and problem solving
•    Communication
•    Collaboration
•    Creativity and innovation

Of course, mastery of core subjects - reading and language arts, world languages, mathematics, economics, science, geography, history, government, civics and the arts – continues to be important. “Critical-thinking” and collaboration don’t occur in a vacuum.

But in addition, students need to develop life and career skills such as: Flexibility, Adaptability, Initiative and Self-Direction, Social and Cross-Cultural Skills, Productivity and Accountability, Leadership and Responsibility. It will also become increasingly important for students to develop literacy in Global Awareness; Finance and Business; Civics; Health; the Environment; and Information and Media

It should be noted that very little of this is currently “tested”.

The good news for State College is that we have long recognized the importance of 21st century skills, as evidenced by the “10 characteristics of a State High grad”:
•    a responsible and involved citizen
•    a clear and effective communicator
•    a competent problem solver who thinks critically and creatively
•    a productive individual who works independently and collaboratively
•    one who demonstrates respects for self and others in an increasingly diverse society
•    a user of evolving technologies
•    a knowledgeable practitioner of wellness behaviors
•    an informed consumer and effective manager of personal and family resources
•    a responsible steward of the environment
•    a participant in the arts

The challenge for us continues to be: how do we go about this admirable goal in an intentional and deliberate way?

The key is integration. There isn’t time in the school day to teach a course in critical-thinking, so schools will need to find ways to intentionally embed these skills within the core curriculum.

And here’s the question for school leadership: will we commit ourselves to helping students develop the capacity for critical-thinking, citizenship and creativity - even if these skills are not measured on The Test?

Raise Your Hand if You Know the Answer

A core principle of the Professional Development School (the teaching intern partnership between the State College School District and Penn State’s College of Education) is that "inquiry" is an essential component, not only of learning, but of quality teaching.

The PDS philosophy of teacher inquiry is based on the idea that classroom teachers can, and should, generate knowledge about their practice; and that this research – what works, what doesn’t, and why - is a natural extension of good teaching.

That's why I look forward each year to the PDS Inquiry Conference where over seventy interns present the results of their inquires. I've never been disappointed, but this year I came away even more impressed by their professionalism; more appreciative for what they bring to their classrooms; and with a greater expectation for their future in education.

A little hyperbolic perhaps, but entirely justified.

My morning began with a presentation by first/second-grade intern Margaret Morton, whose inquiry originated with this "wondering": why are some students reluctant to participate in class, even those who are otherwise good students?

As you would expect, a large part of the answer has to do with the fear of being wrong, which afflicts a lot of people, regardless of academic ability. But what to do?

Margaret tried several approaches, but one strategy that proved particularly effective was the “buddy system”. Allowing pairs of students a little time to first discuss their thinking with each other gave them confidence that they were on the right track, and made them more comfortable about “going public” with their answer.

As good research tends to do, this lead me to a more fundamental wondering: why should students participate in class?  This has been a part of education for so long that the question is seldom asked.

A common reply is that “class participation will be 10% of your grade”, which is a terrible answer in that it only serves to externalize the motivation to learn. A better answer is the one Margaret offered: in order to contribute to the class.

However, the value of a student’s contribution depends a lot on what kind of answer you’re looking for.  “1776” and “93 million miles” do little to contribute to the learning of other students in the class, except to further demonstrate who the “smart” kids are.

Rather, it’s those questions for which there aren’t any “right” answers that provide the best opportunities for authentic student contribution. (By the way, this is especially true – or should be – in math class. What strategy did you use to approach this problem? Why? What other strategies could be used?)

A good answer (or question) is one that “contributes” to the class by provoking additional thinking, and learning, in other students.

Knowing how to generate and encourage authentic class participation – what kinds of questions to ask, and how to ask them - is a key part of how teachers create a classroom climate that is conducive to learning.

School climate and school "reform"

Creating an environment in which everyone - not just the teachers - feels valued and respected is not a “once-and-done” project; it needs to become part of the organizational DNA. This begins with the school board, who collectively set the tone for the entire district.

The reason this has to start at the board level is that you cannot begin the necessary conversations about school environment unless you establish a climate in which such conversations are possible.

If school officials – administrators and teachers - sense that the results are going to be used against them, this is the surest way to prevent the honest conversations that are essential to the process. People have to know that they will not be penalized for speaking honestly.

The logical first step is to find out where you “are”; that is, you need to make an honest assessment of your organizational, or school “climate”. What is the level of trust throughout the organization? Said another way, how do students, teachers, administrators and parents feel about their school and each other?

Most importantly, how conducive is that climate to learning? Here are a few questions to which you’d want answers:

Do students feel physically - and emotionally - safe? (Is bullying an issue?)
·    Intellectually safe? (Is it ok to be “smart”? Is curiosity encouraged?)
·    Do students feel connected to their teachers? Are their classes challenging and engaging?

Do teachers feel supported? Are their opinions valued?
·    Is it safe to expose their practices to administrators and other teachers for critical review?
·    Is “risk-taking encouraged? (Is it ok to try something new, even if it doesn’t work?)
·    Are there sufficient opportunities for collaboration?

Do the parents feel welcome in the school?
·    Are they encouraged to participate in their child’s education?
·    Do they receive adequate feedback from teachers?

Do principals have the skills needed in an educational leader?
·    Do they recognize good teaching, and can they offer constructive criticism?
·    Do they feel micro-managed by the school board?
Principals are the educational leaders of a school; more than anyone else, they are responsible for the school’s climate. Is that part of their evaluation process?

Does everyone feel that they have a say in how “their” school is run?

How these questions are answered will vary widely from one school to another - as will the actions the school community chooses to take in response - which is why a one-size-fits-all approach to school reform cannot work.

This brings me back to where I started this series: struggling to understand the Obama administration’s re-authorization blueprint. Why does the administration remain committed to a few approved strategies (including charters and school closings) for turning around low-performing schools?

The common thread is that each of their strategies requires a change in school leadership. But their reasoning is what’s important – Duncan and Obama see a change in school leadership as the key to changing the underlying issue of a toxic school culture.

On the importance of school culture, they are absolutely correct. The problem is there’s no evidence that any of the proposed interventions are effective!  (To me, they have an aroma of desperation.)

If you want to change the school climate, you have to go about it deliberately and patiently, with the full participation of all stakeholders. There are no quick fixes.


Next: If school climate is the foundation of school reform, then what’s the framework for the building?

The "so-what"

We could continue down this road of simplistic and too-narrowly focused solutions – charter schools, “higher standards”, state graduation exams, pay for performance, the elimination of tenure, etc.. And while there may be some merit to each of these ideas, none of them will get us where we want to go.

As I said last time, so what?

Several weeks ago, I stumbled across a segment on the Newshour that described the Easton, PA school district’s effort to connect teacher compensation to student test scores. (This was in order to meet one of the criteria of the federal “Race to the Top” grants.) This went along predictably, with the teacher’s association responding less than enthusiastically to the school board’s initiative. But what struck me was this comment by a school board member: “the problem is, there’s just not enough trust.”

There’s the so-what.

If we’re going to succeed at the highly complex and interconnected undertaking of reforming America’s schools, it’s going to require all the stakeholders – teachers, students, parents, administrators, community members and policy-makers – to push in the same direction. And that’s going to require a level of trust that cannot be imposed from Washington or Harrisburg.  Trust has to be built locally.

As Anthony Cody put it in his terrific blog, The Missing Ingredient in School Reform, “Trust is perhaps the single most important element in a successful school.”

For me, the issue of school reform – perhaps “transformation” is the better word – boils down to how we answer two questions:
·    What does every student need to know and be able to do in order to be successful?
·    How do we create the best learning environment for that to occur?

As I see it, the learning environment – or “school climate” - is the obvious, but often overlooked foundation for everything else. And if a positive school climate is the foundation of school reform, then trust is the cornerstone.

In many places, that would require a different way of thinking.

Take, as just one example, contract negotiations. The traditional view is that the teacher’s association sits on one side of the table, trying to get the best deal for their members, while the school board sits on the opposite side, trying to give away as little as possible.

The problem with the traditional – confrontational - approach is that it doesn’t help to create an atmosphere in which teachers will feel inspired to go above and beyond the call of duty for their students. (In this sense, it is neither cost-effective nor aligned with organizational goals.)

But in highly-functioning school districts, the goal is to come to an agreement that everyone sees as fair - admittedly, easier said than done, and an unrealistic expectation unless you’ve spent time working on the foundation.  In order for any “side” to think beyond its own self interest, there has to be a fairly significant level of trust – enough that people begin to believe that we’re all actually on the same side.

This atmosphere needs to be developed and sustained throughout the entire organization. In fact, developing a climate of trust and collaboration around a common goal is the central task of school leadership.

Ed Policy, part 3

The last decades’ rhetoric on standards has also allowed us to ignore the important impact that “equity” has on educational quality –conveniently giving politicians an excuse from having to make tough decisions. Politicians, after all, are responsible for how our resources are distributed.

(To his credit - on this issue - Governor Rendell has been an exception.)

But it is ridiculous to suggest that educational quality is unaffected by money. Upper-middle class suburban taxpayers don’t enjoy paying taxes more than anyone else, but they’re willing to do it because they believe good facilities and well-paid teachers give their children a competitive advantage.  And they’re right.

Children learn better – or more accurately, they have better opportunities to learn – in classrooms with adequate heat, good air ventilation, indirect lighting and good acoustics. On the other hand, money alone won’t fix anything. Well-paid teachers and great facilities won’t compensate for the lack of engaging, focused instruction and supportive parents.

Still others have suggested that the “solution” is to “pay for performance”. Well, maybe – but here’s the problem with that, as I see it. For teachers - particularly the good ones - it’s not about the money. Numerous teacher surveys – most recently by the Gates Foundation – have come the same conclusion: “supportive leadership” and “time to collaborate” are more important to teachers than “higher salaries”.

While teachers should be treated as professionals, and paid accordingly, the vast majority of teachers are motivated intrinsically – whose life did I change today? - not extrinsically.

Plus, to think that you could create an accountability system without input from teachers (i.e., NCLB) is just crazy. It’s not that teachers don’t want to be held “accountable”; they want to be accountable in ways that are meaningful.

Finally, I should mention the two ideas that have been the core of NCLB: “higher standards” and “highly qualified” teachers. First, the research has been clear: so-called higher standards hasn’t improved education for most students. As Darling-Hammond recently put it, “just telling schools that they (have to reach a certain standard) is not going to get them to do it better. We’re assuming they’re able to do better, but are unwilling.”

This is particularly problematic when the “standards” are unconnected to the skills and knowledge that students will actually need to be successful employees and citizens.

Unfortunately, “highly qualified” was all about teaching credentials, not teaching skills. Sure, it’s important for teachers to “know the material” - but being a Math major in college doesn’t prepare you to teach math to a group of fourth-graders of varying interests, abilities and learning styles.

And so, I’ve come to this sobering but somewhat obvious conclusion: providing every child with a quality education is a highly complex undertaking, one that defies easy and simplistic solutions.

Well, so what?