tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-50796783416887261282024-03-05T03:46:41.962-05:00Thoughts on Education in the Worthington School District, Ohio and the USAYears ago, I took an interest in public policy with a focus on education issues. I wanted to serve the community and was blessed to be elected to the Worthington Board of Education in Worthington, OH. This blog will allow me to share thoughts on the issues of the day as well as providing constituents the chance to opine on those issues. These thoughts are mine alone and may or may not represent the thoughts of the Worthington School Board or our district's administration.Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-68138417889262895172016-08-17T10:18:00.000-04:002016-08-17T10:18:09.296-04:00Convocation 2016 - "To Empower A Community of Learners Who Will Change the World". <div class="MsoTitle">
This week, I had the high honor of addressing the faculty and staff of the Worthington School District during our annual school kickoff event known as Convocation. The event is part pep-rally, part tradition and part serious talk. There are lots of things I could have focused on during my 7 minutes of fame, but I decided to focus on the district's new mission statement which is: </div>
<div class="MsoTitle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle">
To Empower a Community of Learners who will change the world. </div>
<div class="MsoTitle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle">
My message had two main parts - the world-changing role of teachers, aides and public education in general in our society and what specifically it means to change the world. </div>
<div class="MsoTitle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle">
The opportunity to provide this message is one of highlights of my time on Worthington's Board. It was an opportunity to take a step back from the day to day, week to week routine of serving on a Board of Education and focus on what the heck we are really doing here. Here's the speech. </div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<o:p>=======================================================================</o:p></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
Good Morning. My name is Marc Schare and I have the
honor of serving as the President of the Worthington Board of Education this
year. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
I’ll start my remarks with a bit of a confession.
I’m really not one for corporate mission/vision statements. In my experience in
corporate America, large companies spend a lot of time creating an utterly
meaningless statement that is forgotten as soon as it is introduced. Still,
when our new Superintendent told our board that he wanted to go through yet
another visioning process, I thought it was harmless. A few months went by and
I didn’t really think much more about it. Dr. Bowers would send the Board
updates periodically and a few of us went to a few of the community meetings
and finally, one cold day last February, Trent sends an email announcing the
mission statement. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>To empower a
community of learners who will change the world <o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
What an audacious goal, I thought. Aspirational to be sure. Thought provoking?
Absolutely! But seriously, as my inner
voice debated with itself – how many Worthington students will, in the fullness
of time, change the world and what does that even mean. Ultimately, I decided
that it was not only meaningful, not only actionable but absolutely essential
to what we do here and I thought I’d take
my allotment of time to opine why this mission statement, unlike so many others
in corporate America, should be taken seriously as a foundational, governing
document. To do so, I thought I would channel my inner “Trent Bowers” and tell
you a story. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
I went to small, private high school on Staten
Island in New York and didn’t have any real opportunities to explore career
options until I was a freshman in college. My first year, I signed up for mostly
introductory classes at my community college turned 4-year school because
that’s what you did in the 70’s but there were really only two classes that I
was looking forward to. The first, and I know this is going to shock you, was Politics
101 and the other was Computer Science 101. I had zero exposure to either area
before college since my high school offered neither. In my political science
class, from day one until day whatever, the professor stood in front of the
classroom literally reading the textbook to us. There was no inspiration, no
passion, little discussion and he didn’t care if you showed up or not, and this
was in the middle of the Presidential Campaign between Jimmy Carter and Gerald
Ford. I did poorly on the final examination despite getting every answer
correct because I missed the instruction in the beginning that said I needed to
write in complete sentences so although I knew that Carl Albert was the Speaker
of the House, since I didn’t write “Carl Albert is the Speaker of the House of
Representatives”, I was marked wrong on every question and very nearly failed
the class for that reason. I do not remember the instructor’s name, only that I
swore I wasn’t going to take another class like that again. The next semester,
I took Computer Science 101 and fell in love with it immediately. The professor
was Mimi Tausner and she was able to take what for most was an incredibly dry
subject and make it come alive for me. She was so inspirational that I did
numerous extra credit assignments for her, including programming a horse race
prediction program among other notable accomplishments that first year.
Professor Tausner is the reason why I went into computer software as a
profession and I’ve always thought that if Professor Tausner brought her
passion to Politics 101 and Professor Politics brought his drudgery to Computer
Science 101, my entire career and life would have been very, very different.
Such is the power you, as teachers, hold
in our society and it is an awesome power to literally change the direction of
a student’s life in a few short months. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
But, does changing that life mean changing the
world? Well. That brings me to Part 2 of my story. Fast forward 5 years and I
was working in Bell Labs as a systems programmer working with really, really
powerful mainframes. I noticed that we were doing all kinds of repetitive,
operational tasks manually that could be done more accurately and more
efficiently by the machine itself. A few years and a lot of 1am to 7am
programming time later, the world’s first commercially available automated
operations package for IBM mainframe computers was born. A few years after
that, it and the competition it inspired was running in a thousand companies across the planet and changed the way that
people thought about operating these large scale computers. I don’t know if that is a “change the world”
story but I’m pretty sure it’s as a close as I’m going to get. One thing I know for certain is that it would not have happened if
Professor Mimi Tausner didn’t spend time with
an awkward 17 year old kid who had a really tough time in high school, never
took an AP class or any advanced coursework for that matter, never took the SAT
and yet somehow, she ignited a passion I
didn’t know I had. Maybe I didn’t change the world, but she sure changed my
world, an opportunity you will have every day throughout your careers as
educators. The moral of my story, not to beat you over the head with it, is
that you never, ever know what word, what action, what combination of events is
going to inspire some student into performing some world-changing action. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>To Empower a
Community of Learners that will change the world <o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
A few weeks ago, I had a long conversation,
coincidentally, with a 20 something year old Worthington graduate who was
expressing personal angst that he had not yet changed the world and
accomplished something significant. Eventually, the conversation came around to
exactly what “changing the world” means. Does it mean solving some intractable global
problem like world hunger or clean water? Does it mean directly influencing
global public policy? Does it mean you
have to invent something that positively impacts the lives of millions of
people? My answer is no, not necessarily. My fondest wish for our students is
that armed with what you provide them, they go out into the world and, to the
best of their ability, change *their* world in positive ways, whatever that
might mean to the individual, and if it has some broader significance to our
society, so much the better. Some of our students will change their world
through good works afforded via financial success. Others will, I’m quite
certain, achieve scientific breakthroughs (in fact, I saw one at last year’s
science fair). Still others will be
known locally, nationally or globally for their abilities in the arts but virtually
everyone who walks through the door of one of our buildings this week will
change the world as perceived by their parents, their relatives, their
professional colleagues and later on, their children. How they do that is up to
them, and you. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
I really believe that every single one of our
students walking into each of your classrooms, getting on each of your buses,
eating one of your lunches, playing on one of your teams or participating in
one of your activities has the God given potential to change the world but it
is up to you, teachers, aides, drivers, secretaries, custodians and
administrators of the Worthington School District to find and ignite within
that student the passion, drive and commitment necessary to maximize their own
world-changing abilities, just like it was up to Professor Mimi Tausner to do
so with me. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
No, I’m not one for corporate mission statements,
but this one works for me because it so encapsulates why we are here, why you
became educators, why I ran for the school board in the first place and how our
district will ultimately be successful and how, honestly, that success should
be measured. On behalf of the Board of Education, thank you for your attention,
we look forward with you to the start of the school year and most of all, we
wish you Godspeed in your mission to empower a community of learners who will
change the world. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-31168453642984493062015-12-08T22:36:00.000-05:002015-12-08T22:36:05.824-05:00You say you want a resolutionA few weeks back, I attended a meeting of the Worthington Area Democratic Club (<a href="https://www.facebook.com/Worthington-Area-Democratic-Club-59629056609/" target="_blank">WADC</a>) where the featured speaker was Dr. Bill Phillis. Dr. Phillis works today to <a href="http://ohiocoalition.org/" target="_blank">eliminate charter schools</a> in the state of Ohio. As part of his efforts, he convinced a number of Boards of Education throughout the state to pass a resolution <a href="http://dianeravitch.net/2015/11/05/ohio-public-school-districts-bill-state-for-revenue-lost-to-charters/" target="_blank">invoicing the state</a> for the amount of money the state used for charter school tuition in that district. There have been a number of requests, both at that meeting and through social media, for Worthington to pass a similar resolution. I wanted to use this blog post to provide some personal philosophy on this.<br />
<br />
Worthington has passed several resolutions in my time on the Board. A few months back, we passed a <a href="http://www.mschare.com/uploads/lineitemvetoresolution.pdf" target="_blank">resolution calling for a line-item veto override</a> of the Governor's veto on TPP reimbursement funding. We also <a href="http://www.mschare.com/uploads/charterschoolfundingresolution.pdf" target="_blank">passed a resolution calling for a change for how the state implements charter school funding</a>, essentially calling for the state to fund charter schools directly rather than using the public school district as a middleman. Going back a few years, we passed a resolution in opposition to the Ohio School Boards Association decision to allow questionable investments with defacto public money and we passed a <a href="http://www.mschare.com/uploads/resoutionopposinghb597final.pdf" target="_blank">resolution in opposition to HB597</a>, a piece of disastrous legislation that would have crippled our district's ability to deliver a quality education for years to come by repealing Common Core, negating years of hard work on the part of our teachers designing a local curriculum and requiring 3 different sets of standards within a 5 year period.<br />
<br />
So what is the difference between these resolutions and the requests for us to pass a resolution invoicing the state for charter school tuition? For me, the difference is simple. Invoicing the state for charter school tuition is a stunt designed to grab headlines but it is not a serious attempt at changing or influencing public policy. No one believes the state is going to pay those invoices and while I appreciate the point those districts are trying to make, it does not serve to advance their cause.<br />
<br />
In my experience, when our Board passes a resolution, it is a serious request for somebody to do something. We use the resolution sparingly, but when we use it, we mean it. I would hate for those efforts to be cheapened by engaging in political theatrics, regardless of how tempting the target may be.<br />
<br />
Let me digress for a moment and point out that our resolutions usually pass unanimously despite a Board that includes representation from both major parties. I'm proud that at least in Worthington, education is not a partisan issue. Right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of political affiliation. Given our board's representation across the political spectrum, when we come together on a critical statewide issue, it is generally the right thing to do.<br />
<br />
When Worthington passes a resolution, it empowers our administration to use their resources to gather support through the various education groups in the state. It empowers BOE members to testify as to the content of the resolution to legislative committees on behalf of the board, not just as individuals and it alerts our legislative representatives that a given policy position is something our district expects them to act on.<br />
<br />
Let me offer one example. When Worthington passed its resolution about TPP reimbursements, a Democrat, Rep. David Leland and a Republican, Rep. Mike Duffey, were both in the room listening to our discussion and they both committed to address the issue with the legislature. A few months later, the legislature did, in fact, pass a revised TPP phaseout schedule resulting in Worthington receiving an additional 7 million dollars over the next 5 years. I don't expect that everything our district asks for via the resolution will be granted, but I do expect that our resolutions will be taken seriously by those in power at the state house. Passing feel-good resolutions such as invoicing the state for charter school tuition would detract from the serious policy discussions that need to take place. There continue to be ongoing discussions about charter school funding in the legislature and my hope is that our district's resolution will articulate our preferred solution in a way that simply sending an invoice does not.<br />
<br />
All that said, our entire board does take constituent requests very seriously and I imagine we will consider resolutions that community groups want us to pass, so don't be shy about asking. The above should be considered Marc's personal philosophy which may or may not be reflective of my colleagues on the Board. Agree or disagree, I wanted to let you know where I stood. Thanks for reading.<br />
<br />
<br />Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-4715486761540696392015-07-01T10:10:00.000-04:002015-07-01T10:10:27.109-04:00Governor vetoes Worthington's TPP reimbursement. <div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 15.4559993743896px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
Worthington residents awoke this morning to the news that Governor Kasich has line item vetoed the TPP reimbursements that the Ohio House, Ohio Senate and Conference Committee had all agreed to. In his veto message, the Governor believes that Worthington has the "capacity" to raise those funds locally and therefore, that money should go to poorer districts.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 15.4559993743896px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 15.4559993743896px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
I have a few thoughts to share. First, the money isn't actually going to poorer districts, it's staying in the state tr<span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline;">easury unless appropriated somewhere else.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 15.4559993743896px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 15.4559993743896px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px;">
Second, I've been saying for years that Worthington (Dublin, Hilliard, Olentangy) should not believe that higher state taxes necessarily leads to more aid for the school district. A local levy is the only surefire way to know that your tax dollars are going to your school district. Statewide taxes are always going to be redistributed away from suburban school districts like Worthington.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Third, it's now clear that the phaseout on Tangible Personal Property Tax reimbursements will continue as scheduled until Worthington's entire 10 million dollar annual allocation is eliminated. This has already been accounted for in our forecasting models so it doesn't change the levy timeline, but that doesn't make it any less disappointing. The message from the Kasich administration is that more affluent districts are on their own.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
The statewide education groups that we hang out with are going to check into the possibility of a legislative override to the veto. Under Ohio law, it takes 60% of the legislature to override the veto. Since 60% of the legislature voted for these funds in the first place, you would think an override would be easy, but I'm pretty sure that Speaker Rosenberger and President Faber would never embarrass the Governor by allowing the vote.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
I can't put a dollar figure yet on how much the veto costs us, but as we already accounted for it in the forecast, it won't affect operations or any current budget.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Finally, I'd be remiss to once again not thank <a class="profileLink" data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/page.php?id=293447887371629" href="https://www.facebook.com/StateRepMikeDuffey" style="color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">State Rep Mike Duffey</a> for ensuring the TPP hold harmless made it into the House version of the budget. The Governor's veto extends to the second year of the biennium, so in "Glass Half Full" mode, it can be correctly stated that Rep. Duffey did manage to secure a few million dollars for us in 2016 that we weren't counting on, and as with all TPP replacement funds, that money will go into the district's contingency fund which is used to delay the next levy.</div>
</div>
Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-40274370502300280272014-02-21T19:11:00.000-05:002014-02-21T19:11:40.760-05:00The Cost of Calamity Days.This blog post was inspired by a Columbus Dispatch article dated February 21, 2014 where the Dispatch, in response to comments from members of the legislature, tried to tally up the cost of calamity days in Ohio. The article is here: <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/02/21/tallying-calamity-days-cost-isnt-easy.html">http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/02/21/tallying-calamity-days-cost-isnt-easy.html</a><br />
<br />
The line that got me was this one: <br />
<br />
<em>They used numbers that ranged from $460 million to $700 million that they said would be wasted
if teachers were paid for four days — in addition to the five allowed now — when classes are
canceled for bad weather.</em><br />
<em>
</em><br />
<em>“If you divide the 184 days into the billions and billions … we spend (on education), I’m told
you spend about $115 million a day,” Rep. Lynn Wachtmann, R-Napoleon, said during the debate on
Wednesday.</em><br />
<em></em><br />
The calculation - divide the total cost of education by the number of days of education to get the per day cost - makes sense if education employees were producing cars and the factories had to run a certain number of days to produce a certain number of cars, however, I don't really think education works that way. I think that over the course of a semester or a school year, the content that needs to be taught is taught. You don't get 0.5% better an education for each made up calamity day in quite the same way that you can produce 0.5% more cars if the factory ran an extra day. If only it was that easy, right? <br />
<br />
The question is (or should be) - how many days or hours are required to teach the board (community) approved curriculum? It may very well be 180, but it could also be 160 or 200. Given the major shift in Ohio education brought about by Common Core and given that this is the first year that a full Common Core based (though locally developed) curriculum is being taught, I don't think anyone knows. This will come over time, with experience. It's also obvious that education is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. When you build a car, it takes the same amount of time to build each car and each car turns out more or less the same. Educating children, when each child is a unique entity with their own talents, hopes, dreams, fears and needs, is a bit more complex and logically would require a different amount of time for each kid to do the job.<br />
<br />
The legislation <a href="http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=130_HB_416" target="_blank">(HB416)</a> passed by the Ohio House allows that for calamity days 8 and 9, teachers must report for work for training purposes. If you <a href="http://www.ohiochannel.org/MediaLibrary/Media.aspx?fileId=142397&startTime=4696&autoStart=True" target="_blank">listen to the debate</a> on the House Floor, it was clear that the motivating factor was to make sure that the state got their moneys worth out of teachers for the year. Makes sense, you say, so why do I find this disturbing? <br />
<br />
Teachers are white collar professional workers with a unique skill set. Each year, their task is to teach the required curriculum. If they can do that in 160 days, that's great. If it takes a full 180 days, that's OK and if takes 200 days, they should be willing to do that as well. It's not about "getting our money worth", its about making sure that each kid has had sufficient time in school and/or online and with teachers to absorb a differentiated curriculum tailored to the individual student so they can be the most successful in the current year and future years. <strong>In other words, it should be the result that matters.</strong> We pay teachers an annual salary to achieve a result and as long as that result is achieved, does it really matter if teachers get to stay home when it snows? <br />
<br />
So, you might be asking yourself why it does matter - why are so many people concerned about whether teachers report to work on calamity days. Ironically, it's because of the teachers themselves, or rather, their unions. <a href="http://www.serb.state.oh.us/sections/research/WEB_CONTRACTS/WebContracts.htm" target="_blank">Virtually every teacher union contract in the state</a> treats our professional teachers as if they were blue collar assembly line workers. The contracts rigidly mandate the number of days worked, the number of hours worked, the number of minutes that teachers must be in training, the number of minutes a teacher gets for lunch, length of recess and so forth. Don't believe it? Read this <a href="http://sandbox.ceaohio.org/?cat=762" target="_blank">excerpt </a> or this <a href="http://sandbox.ceaohio.org/?cat=763" target="_blank">excerpt</a> from the Columbus Education Association contract with Columbus City Schools. This rigidity makes perfect sense in a factory where if someone is off the line, the necessary result cannot be achieved but it makes absolutely no sense in providing an education for children in the year 2014, especially given our connected society where learning can continue online, through text messages to teachers, email exchanges on Saturdays or at 3am and so forth. <br />
<br />
What needs to happen in my opinion is that we need a whole new paradigm when it comes to thinking about time in schools. Most teachers, at least in Worthington, work very hard to make sure that kids get the material they need. Most teachers work tirelessly to differentiate instruction and provide enrichment opportunities for advanced learners and most teachers are relentless at helping struggling learners reach mastery in a given subject. Frankly, we should expect nothing less of professional educators. Given this professional relationship, I would personally never demand that teachers report to work for training on calamity days 8 and 9 as HB416 allows. Instead, I would expect that whatever professional training is required for teachers to do their jobs well, they obtain. I, for one, refuse to treat professional educators as assembly line workers and I hope that one day, throughout the country, our professional educators no longer treat themselves as assembly line workers. <br />
<br />
When they day happens, when both school district management and teachers can focus on the results and not so much whether we are getting our moneys worth by counting every minute teachers are on or off the job, education in this country will have taken a giant step forward. <br />
<br />
Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-67943736968708478652013-10-17T17:13:00.000-04:002013-10-17T17:13:01.525-04:00Feeling like a Million Bucks. The State of Ohio has not had a school funding formula last more than just a few years in quite some time. Every 2 years seems to bring us another biennial budget with its share of winners and losers as the formula is changed. <br />
<br />
While the legislature and the Ohio Department of Education produce simulations, conservative treasurers will always wait until the money starts flowing before incorporating the numbers into projections. For this cycle, that first payment happened last week and the financial news appears to continue to be very good for Worthington. <br />
<br />
Here are the summaries. The first is from the "Bridge" report that detailed our state foundation funding and deductions from 2011. The second is from the new funding report in October of 2013. <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8KIlgj171SZbFdZjXgO_QBwKvDDjwPA7S_zqxk1h19zG6sw-Vfzq94Et9lJTvxBv6C_xIlwe3meupo58SWwt3o5ivnPP_Nq45ZKews4fYAzoLHrScVTn1f5I53bQhEK7v2hWKGQehcFbB/s1600/b1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="425" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8KIlgj171SZbFdZjXgO_QBwKvDDjwPA7S_zqxk1h19zG6sw-Vfzq94Et9lJTvxBv6C_xIlwe3meupo58SWwt3o5ivnPP_Nq45ZKews4fYAzoLHrScVTn1f5I53bQhEK7v2hWKGQehcFbB/s640/b1.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Worthington State Funding 2011-2012 and 2012-2013<br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht2w1pCx1AK5YghDPEpbhU_asmMstdmo2mZ-YCSJL_2DcPFJuCQj3g2UiQJPoYSr3znHMcarnwKhBRXziL56_IyumqDMSi3trvHvbtMir0-TIBm1MYDevw1Y8vYtslhFRUg5vX45kxyDv-/s1600/b2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="304" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEht2w1pCx1AK5YghDPEpbhU_asmMstdmo2mZ-YCSJL_2DcPFJuCQj3g2UiQJPoYSr3znHMcarnwKhBRXziL56_IyumqDMSi3trvHvbtMir0-TIBm1MYDevw1Y8vYtslhFRUg5vX45kxyDv-/s640/b2.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Worthington State Funding 2013-2014 and 2014-2015<br />
<br />
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
<span style="font-size: small;">So the numbers are as follows: </span></div>
<div align="left">
<span style="font-size: small;"></span> </div>
<div align="left">
<span style="font-size: small;">Previous Budget: Total Foundation Funding before deductions: $13,818,020</span></div>
<div align="left">
<span style="font-size: small;"> Total Foundation Funding after deductions: $10,891,501</span></div>
<div align="left">
<span style="font-size: small;"></span> </div>
<div align="left">
<span style="font-size: small;">New State Budget Total Foundation Funding before deductions: $14,681,693</span></div>
<div align="left">
<span style="font-size: small;">New State Budget Total Foundation Funding after deductions: $11,936,511</span></div>
<div align="left">
<span style="font-size: small;"></span> </div>
<div align="left">
<span style="font-size: small;">To be sure, these are unofficial projections based solely on the data from ODE. Our Treasurer will be updating the Board with his official projections later this month. The numbers will be vetted through the Treasurer's Advisory Committee at a meeting on October 21 and be the main topic of the Board Meeting on October 28. </span></div>
<div align="left">
<span style="font-size: small;"></span> </div>
<div align="left">
<span style="font-size: small;">Unofficially, though, this is a difference to the bottom line of $1,045,010 for the first year. That's a little over a million dollars a year of unanticipated revenue that can be use for programmatic expansion or saved for a rainy day. Please note that these funds are over and above the funds that Worthington will receive from the permanent reimbursement of the Tangible Personal Property Tax now ensconced in state law. </span></div>
<div align="left">
<span style="font-size: small;"></span> </div>
<div align="left">
<span style="font-size: small;">The news gets even better! Worthington's state foundation funding was "Capped Out". The state, in an attempt to conserve funds, ruled that no school district would receive more than a 6.25% increase between this year and last year, even if it would receive more funds under the formula. As you can see from the second chart, the calculated formula number is closer to $19,000,000. Since the cap is 10.5% in the second year of the biennium, Worthington should receive another increase for the 2014-2015 school year. </span></div>
<div align="left">
<span style="font-size: small;"></span> </div>
<div align="left">
<span style="font-size: small;">All of this good news is why I continue to believe we will have sufficient revenue (again, assuming current state law is maintained with regard to TPP reimbursements) to extend the 2012 levy until at least 2017 and maybe <a href="http://mschare.blogspot.com/2013/09/2018.html" target="_blank">2018</a> while also having sufficient funds for programmatic expansion such as the reintroduction of a foreign language program in the elementary grades.</span> </div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
<div align="left">
</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-89981775763347708282013-09-20T12:56:00.000-04:002013-09-20T13:05:06.576-04:002018<br />
<div class="MsoTitle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">In November of 2012, Worthington City School
district <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>residents <a href="http://www.thisweeknews.com/content/stories/All-Stories/2012/11/06/worthington-school-levy-bond-issue.html" target="_blank">passed</a> an incremental
operating levy. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our district had <a href="http://www.mschare.com/uploads/issue53article.pdf" target="_blank">made a case</a> that reductions at the state level, particularly in regard to <a href="http://www.tax.ohio.gov/portals/0/personal_property/tangible_personal_property_tax_changes_in_hb1.pdf" target="_blank">tangible personal property tax reimbursements</a>, were going to result in a <a href="http://www.thisweeknews.com/content/stories/olentangy/news/2012/03/13/tangible-tax-loss-costing-our-school-districts-millions.html" target="_blank">significant funding drop</a> which, if quality was to be maintained, would have to be restored
at the local level. At the time, it was a perfectly valid assumption. In fact,
prior to voting to place the levy on the ballot, State Representative <a href="http://www.ohiohouse.gov/mike-duffey" target="_blank">Mike Duffey</a>
had arranged a conference call between me and the chairman of the Ohio House
Budget Committee, <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and <a href="http://www.ohiohouse.gov/ron-amstutz" target="_blank">Chairman Amstutz</a>
told me directly that it was more likely than not that Worthington's TPP
revenue from the state would be phased out. In addition, we made some other <a href="http://www.mschare.com/finance/may2012forecastnotes.pdf" target="_blank">assumptions</a> in
advance of placing that levy on the ballot. We assumed there would be no
retirements from the Worthington School District, or, more correctly, we
conservatively did not include those in the forecast used to determine the levy
amount. We also forecasted some steep increases in employee health care costs. </span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoTitle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Fast forward a year. The levy has passed and, in the fullness of time, we now know how our assumptions panned out. </span> </div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<ul>
<li>TPP Reimbursements were not phased out and current state law says that they are not going to be phased out. Assuming state law is not changed, this will result in 22.2 million dollars of unforecasted revenue to the district in the next 4 years, and approximately 10 million dollars a year after that. </li>
<li>We had over 100 certified staff retire. This will result in considerable savings each year. In fact, our average teacher salary dropped $2,500 in the last year alone. </li>
<li>We are anticipating around $400K/year in casino money. That money was not yet forecasted when we determined the levy amount. </li>
<li>Our health care renewal rate was forecasted to be 13%. Because of our lower-than-expected claims experience, it turned out to be 3.56%. </li>
</ul>
</div>
<br />
<span style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Now, it is time to do some long term financial planning. When will the Worthington School District have to run another levy. </span><br />
<br />
First, let's figure out where we are. If you want to know when the next Worthington levy will be required, you must first calculate a target cash balance that you want to maintain at all times. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)<a href="https://gfoa-mo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Reserves.pdf" target="_blank"> recommends</a> 60 days of expenditures while the credit agencies say that 5% is fine. We'll go with GFOA for the purpose of this exercise. Once we find the first year when we no longer have that 60 days of operating expenses in the bank, the rule of thumb is that we back it up 2 years and that would be the year that we need to run the next levy. <br />
<br />
So, with all the good financial news, let's get to work calculating when that next levy might be required. <strong>For the purposes of this exercise, I am going to be really, really conservative and only use the TPP reimbursements as a modification to the </strong><a href="http://www.mschare.com/finance/0513forecast.pdf" target="_blank"><strong>forecast</strong></a><strong> that was passed in May of 2013</strong>. If we do this, we would take the ending cash balance at FY17 in the lower right hand corner of the link, which is 24.3 million dollars and add the 22.2 million dollars above, giving us a total of 46.5 million dollars. This is above our rule of thumb, so no levy is required in 2015. <br />
<br />
Since this forecast only runs through 2017, we need to approximate what other years of the forecast might look like. Being ultra conservative, we anticipate virtually no new revenue from anywhere (note: the treasurer does assume a small amount of incremental revenue from "inside millage") and we anticipate expense growth at the projected rate in 2017, which is 3.2%. Let's do that for three additional years, FY18, FY19 and FY20. When we do this, we get a very rough forecast that looks like <a href="http://www.mschare.com/uploads/masforecast2013.pdf" target="_blank">this</a>. <br />
<br />
The resulting forecast has a chart showing the following ending cash balances. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSnXgpnBNmOHYtKP2bXVlm3uBHrBS8iB4GR_0fRjqBkkJnZfCDf5TooNMARGBzqlX1QvssvwOqf_iGmp89i1eA06KtYNTJxjj-cRIZKZeCDx5rhJJcM7ATNNNhLhkB8yg6D5o2SMEiIHgR/s1600/cashbalance.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="241" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSnXgpnBNmOHYtKP2bXVlm3uBHrBS8iB4GR_0fRjqBkkJnZfCDf5TooNMARGBzqlX1QvssvwOqf_iGmp89i1eA06KtYNTJxjj-cRIZKZeCDx5rhJJcM7ATNNNhLhkB8yg6D5o2SMEiIHgR/s640/cashbalance.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Worthington School<br />
District *Unofficial* <br />
7 year projection with TPP reimbursements</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The blue line represents the projected end-of-year cash balances <strong><span style="color: red;">assuming the state keeps its hands off of our TPP reimbursement revenue</span></strong> and that we keep expenses growing at a modest rate of about 3.2% after 2017, or roughly 150% of the current inflation rate. <br />
<br />
<div class="MsoTitle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">So where am I going with this? </span><span style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoTitle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Last year, when voting to put the levy on the
ballot, I <a href="http://www.mschare.com/speeches/s052112.pdf" target="_blank">proposed</a> making a promise to the taxpayer that if TPP reimbursements did
continue at a pace higher than that forecasted, the Board and the administration
make a commitment to save those dollars and put them towards extending the life
of this levy. The board did not want to entertain such a promise at that time,
but I want to renew that proposal, and here is why. </span><br />
<span style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"></span><br />
<span style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><strong><u>Voters in Worthington agreed to provide our district with additional operating funds because the district told them that the state was severely cutting our funding.</u> </strong> That message was in virtually every levy communication, and rightly so. Had the state actually cut our funding and without the levy funds, it would have
been a scary proposition. In fact, the district said in numerous forums that we would have to cut 10 million dollars out of the budget over the next several years. In the fullness of time, we now know that the state funding wasn't cut, so the question becomes: What should the Worthington School District do with the windfall? In my opinion, the right thing to do is to honor that
campaign message, preserve the bulk of those funds,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and extend the length of this levy.</span><span style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"><o:p> </o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoTitle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">So how do we make that happen?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If there is one observation I’d make about
government at all levels, Republicans, Democrats and everyone in between, if
you’ve got money, you spend money. It’s human nature. That’s why I believe that
if extending the life of this levy is to be a management objective, it must be
stated as such and management must be held accountable for the results. </span><br />
<br />
The primary vehicle the Board Of Education has to hold administration accountable for results is through the <a href="http://mschare.blogspot.com/2013/07/ohio-superintendent-evaluation-system.html" target="_blank">Ohio Superintendent Evaluation System</a>. OSES provides for a set of goals for the Superintendent to accomplish each year. At the August 26, 2013 BOE meeting, I <a href="http://www.mschare.com/speeches/s082613.pdf" target="_blank">proposed</a> that one of the goals be in the area of resource management that, simply stated, the district be managed in such a way as to not require an operating levy until 2018. The annual, measurable objective (part of OSES) would be to maintain a sufficient cash balance and five year forecast consistent with that goal. <br />
<br />
Obviously, it is a long time between now and 2018 and many things can happen. The goal would have to make allowances for unexpected events. The state could decide tomorrow to cut our funding in half, or issue a series of unfunded mandates. Goals are not meant to be completely inflexible, only to publicly express intentions. <br />
<br />
I also want to emphasize the point that this goal does not mean we won't have money for <a href="http://www.re-electmarc.com/thirdterm.htm" target="_blank">new initiatives</a>. Quite the opposite. Remember, this calculation only includes TPP reimbursements. We have savings from retirements and much lower then expected health care costs, we have revenue from casino operations and ODE is estimating an additional 1 million dollars a year in state aid that we can use towards new programming. We are applying for grants from the Ohio's new "Straight 'A' fund". We also have bond money for technology capital equipment purchases. <br />
<br />
The intent of the goal is not to starve the district of needed revenue, it is merely to state an intention that since the assumptions we documented vis-a-vis state funding to pass the levy in 2012 turned out inaccurate, we use some of the difference to extend the life of the levy, and 2018 is where the math says it would end up using the same rule of thumb that we've used in past levy cycles. <br />
<br />
On Monday, September 23, the Board of Education will discuss and perhaps vote on the goals. The resource management goal, as written, is to extend the life of the levy until (at least) November of 2017. Whether we ultimately wind up agreeing on 2018, 2017 or 2019, the important thing is the philosophy of preserving the unanticipated TPP reimbursement revenues to give Worthington taxpayers a respite from the 3 year levy cycle. By doing so, we have the opportunity to maintain credibility with our constituents and preserve the hard-won trust of our taxpayers, trust that will be necessary the next time we come to voters with a levy request. That's why I pushed for the resource management goal this year and that's why I will be supporting it on Monday. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"></span><br />
<span style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"></span><br />
<span style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"></span><br />
<span style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<em></em><br />
<em>
</em>Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-18764084889015372822013-09-10T13:03:00.000-04:002013-09-10T13:03:17.787-04:00Conflict of Interest.One of the rituals for School Board Candidates in Worthington is the screening/interview process for potential endorsement by the <a href="http://www.worthingtonea.org/" target="_blank">Worthington Education Association</a>, also known as our local teacher's union. The endorsement generally comes with a campaign donation. <br />
<br />
I've screened with the WEA before and even received their endorsement in 2005. This year, I decided not to screen and not to accept the endorsement even if it was offered. This is the letter I wrote to Mark Hill, the President of the WEA explaining my reasons. <br />
<br />
<div>
<em>Mark - </em></div>
<em>
</em><br />
<div>
<em>Thank you for the offer to screen for the endorsement of the Worthington
Education Association in the upcoming school board election. I regret that I
must decline, and I thought I'd take a few moments to explain why. </em></div>
<em>
</em><br />
<div>
<em>There is nothing wrong with an employee association endorsing candidates at
any level. There is, however, in my opinion, an ethical problem for a school
board candidate seeking or accepting an endorsement, let alone money, from an
organization representing individuals where an employer/employee relationship
exists. </em></div>
<em>
</em><br />
<div>
<em>In the weeks, months and years to come, the Worthington Board of Education
will be called upon to negotiate salaries, benefits and working conditions in
good faith with the WEA, to ensure fairness to both employee and constituent in
personnel matters, to ensure both fairness and efficacy in employee evaluations
and vote on or get involved with a myriad of other issues that directly impact
the members of your organization. The Worthington community needs to know that
any decisions I make have not been influenced by your endorsement or a campaign
contribution and the only way to absolutely guarantee that is to not participate
in this process. </em></div>
<em>
</em><br />
<div>
<em>That said, nothing in this letter should be construed as "Marc doesn't want
to talk to the teachers". As you know, you and I have worked collaboratively in
a variety of situations, including many years on the district's Shared Solutions
Committee, Race to the Top committee and the Teacher Evaluation Design
Committee. I would anticipate that such collaboration would continue if I am
privileged enough to be re-elected. </em></div>
<div>
<em></em> </div>
<div>
<em>Best wishes, </em></div>
<div>
<em>Marc Schare</em></div>
<div>
<em>Worthington Board of Education.</em></div>
<div>
<em></em> </div>
<div>
This was a personal decision. I am in no way suggesting that any of my fellow candidates would make decisions based on receiving (or not receiving) the endorsement or campaign contributions. I am saying that the practice of an employee union subject to collective bargaining essentially selecting their employers and then negotiating with those they selected is problematic. It is the very definition of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest" target="_blank">conflict of interest</a>. The union has every right to endorse whoever they want - the conflict of interest is strictly on the candidate. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
There are lot of perceptions, and misperceptions, about unions, both locally and across the state and the country. In my 8 years as a Board Member in Worthington, I've come to value our district's relationship (and my personal relationship) with our employee organizations. Obviously, strong relationships between the Board, administrators, teachers and other staff is essential to the learning process. My position on the endorsement is not intended as an anti-union statement. It is simply that Worthington School District residents have a right to know that my actions representing them will be free of any conflicts or even the appearance of a possible conflict of interest. You might agree or disagree, but that's why I made the decision I did. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-29084599918594814872013-07-28T14:59:00.000-04:002013-07-28T14:59:21.176-04:00Ohio Superintendent Evaluation SystemThe <a href="http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Teaching/Educator-Evaluation-System/Ohio-s-Superintendent-Evaluation-System" target="_blank">Ohio Superintendent Evaluation System</a> is a voluntary mechanism by which a school board may objectively evaluate a Superintendent. It was first used in Worthington in 2011 and will be used for the second time this coming school year of 2013-2014. <br />
<br />
Step One of the system is to create a job description for the Superintendent. While the job description might get edited over time, it is not expected to change much from year to year. Since I was Board President in 2011, the task of writing the job description was mine. Fortunately, the state does provide a template, but school boards are encouraged to alter the template based on local requirements. Worthington's Superintendent Job Description can be found <a href="http://www.mschare.com/uploads/worthingtonosesjobdescription.pdf" target="_blank">here</a> with the local criteria scattered throughout the first few pages of the document. The Superintendent's evaluation will consist partially of how well he (or she) accomplished the various tasks in the job description. <br />
<br />
Step Two of the system is for the Board of Education, Administrators and the Superintendent to agree on a set of achievable, measurable annual goals. This is harder than it sounds. If the goals are very broad (e.g. "Students should learn more"), the Superintendent receives no guidance as to what is really desired. If the goals are very specific, the district focus might be so narrow as to be counterproductive. The goals must be achievable. It serves no purpose to provide an annual objective that is unattainable. The goals must be measurable so that a Superintendent can be fairly evaluated on whether or not they were accomplished. As a general rule, the goals should focus on the "what", not the "how".<br />
<br />
Step Three of the system is for the Superintendent to report to the Board and the community in the middle of the school year on progress towards the goals. Step 4 is for the Board to complete the evaluation at the end of the year based on both the Superintendent's performance on items in the job description and the Superintendent's performance on meeting the annual goals with allowances for the inevitable distractions that the CEO of any large, complex organization faces day to day. <br />
<br />
The Ohio Superintendent Evaluation System, in a nutshell, is the main vehicle by which the Board and the community sets clear expectations for the upcoming school year and holds the Superintendent accountable for the results. <br />
<br />
How the Superintendent accomplishes these results is mostly up to the Superintendent and their administrative team. One methodology would be to include the district's goals in the annual Building Improvement Plans for each of our 18 buildings, or those buildings where it would be appropriate. This would allow the Superintendent and Central Office staff to hold the principals accountable for the goals in their buildings. That's just one methodology, there are many others. <br />
<br />
This year, caution is very much called for because of changes occurring at the state level. Worthington will be implementing the <a href="http://www.corestandards.org/" target="_blank">Common Core state standards</a> and the <a href="http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Teaching/Educator-Evaluation-System/Ohio-s-Teacher-Evaluation-System" target="_blank">Ohio Teacher Evaluation System</a>. That may not leave a lot of administrative time and energy for local initiatives. <br />
<br />
The Worthington Board of Education will meet in a work session on <a href="http://www.worthington.k12.oh.us//site/Default.aspx?PageID=2&PageType=17&DomainID=4&ModuleInstanceID=1&EventDateID=6806" target="_blank">Saturday, August 10 at 1pm</a> to discuss the 2013-2014 goals for the Superintendent as part of OSES. Please feel free to spend your Saturday with us, but if you'd prefer to offer your thoughts ahead of time, please feel free to <a href="http://www.mschare.com/" target="_blank">contact me</a> at your convenience. I have tons of ideas for what our district's goals for the upcoming school year should be and I'd love to hear what you think. Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-67074344494854084362013-06-26T13:00:00.000-04:002013-06-26T13:00:25.615-04:00Financial TransparencyWhat does it mean for a school district to be <em>financially transparent. </em><br />
<br />
It's not an easy question and each reader probably has a different opinion. <br />
<br />
For me, financial transparency means providing information about revenues and expenditures in the district. Sounds simple, doesn't it, until you start thinking about the details. The information should be provided in multiple formats and in multiple levels of detail to satisfy the demands of a diverse constituency. The documentation should attempt to answer questions that can be reasonably anticipated while also providing information that ties the financial health of the district to the academic and programmatic goals of the district. For example, if we are increasing staff as is the case for the upcoming school year, we owe you an explanation as to why. Financial decisions cannot be divorced from programmatic and operational decisions. <br />
<br />
Our district has made tremendous strides in financial transparency under our current treasurer, <a href="http://www.worthington.k12.oh.us/domain/65" target="_blank">Jeff McCuen</a>. His department produces several documents each year, including a five year forecast, a PAFR, a CAFR and a comprehensive budget document. If you are looking for a rough idea of how we are spending your money and how much of your money we are spending, the Popular Annual Financial Report will suffice. If you want much greater detail, one of the other reports would probably do the job. The comprehensive budget document details revenues and expenditures for all funds, not just the general fund. With this document, you can see the various grants received by the district and what we do with them, as well as a wealth of other financial information about our district. <br />
<br />
Here is a list of financial documents from the district's web site: <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.mschare.com/finance/2012PAFR.pdf" target="_blank">1) Popular Annual Financial Report (2012)</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.mschare.com/finance/2012CAFR.pdf" target="_blank">2) Consolidated Annual Financial Report (2012)</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.mschare.com/finance/0513forecast.pdf" target="_blank">3) Five Year Forecast (May, 2013)</a> <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.mschare.com/finance/201305Monthly.pdf" target="_blank">4) Monthly Financial Report (May, 2013)</a> <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.mschare.com/finance/fy13comprehensivebudget.pdf" target="_blank">5) Comprehensive FY14 budget document</a> <br />
<br />
In addition, in conjunction with the district's issuance of bonds after the successful 2012 bond levy, there is an <a href="http://www.msrb.org/msrb1/glossary/view_def.asp?param=OFFICIALSTATEMENT" target="_blank">"official statement"</a> - the document that municipal bond buyers will read to determine the credit worthiness of the district. It makes for some interesting reading. In addition, the district received <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moody%27s_Investors_Service#Moody.27s_credit_ratings" target="_blank">updated ratings</a> from Moodys and S&P in conjunction with the issuance of bonds. These ratings are also used by municpal bond buyers. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.mschare.com/uploads/2013officialstatement.pdf" target="_blank">6) Official Statement from the 2013 Bond Issuance. </a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.mschare.com/finance/2013Ratings.pdf" target="_blank">7) Moodys and S&P ratings.</a> <br />
<br />
<br />
All that said, financial transparency remains a work in progress. For example, we (and most other districts) obfuscate the compensation of some staff members by including in their contracts provisions such as the <a href="http://www.ohsers.org/pick-up-plans" target="_blank">taxpayer pickup</a> of the employees portion of STRS and the ability to buy back unused vacation days. I'm not saying these fringe benefits aren't deserved, but my preference would be to include the value of these provisions in any report that describes the total compensation of a public employee. <a href="http://www.thisweeknews.com/content/stories/westerville/news/2013/05/07/school-board-oks-administrative-contract-guidelines.html" target="_blank">Some school districts</a> are eliminating these provisions in favor of just offering the employee the equivalent in salary, or encouraging the employee to use vacation time. <br />
<br />
Still, I'm happy with the progress we've made towards financial transparency. What do you think? Does our district providing enough financial information and if not, what would you like to see in this area? <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-7540449519175268362013-03-22T00:59:00.001-04:002013-03-22T00:59:43.531-04:00The civics lesson of a lifetimeI wish that everyone in the Worthington community could have been at Worthington Kilbourne High School this morning to see this: <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbWkutVVPbwjHXypV9QclXBVLt9YQlNG0WzobhQ2Eb7t8KFCdt-LPNeh4rKyMsMJhEaTrE_NJ3LX2XQwqJzh5iYpih9u5qePNOzjZ_BA-CSTuyB1cWHiapIG1xqKMfYXOXu6CwSdQ4im8t/s1600/nat1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbWkutVVPbwjHXypV9QclXBVLt9YQlNG0WzobhQ2Eb7t8KFCdt-LPNeh4rKyMsMJhEaTrE_NJ3LX2XQwqJzh5iYpih9u5qePNOzjZ_BA-CSTuyB1cWHiapIG1xqKMfYXOXu6CwSdQ4im8t/s1600/nat1.jpg" height="480" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
The picture needs a bit of explanation. Worthington Kilbourne Assistant Principal Kevin Johnson had an idea that he thought he would run by his acquaintance, <a href="http://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/judges/jwatson.htm" target="_blank">Judge Michael H. Watson</a> of the US District Court, Southern District of Ohio. Would it be possible for Judge Watson to have a United States Citizenship Naturalization Ceremony in a public high school? After many meetings between Mr. Johnson and the Judge's staff, it came to pass and that event happened today. <br />
<br />
Seventy individuals as young as 18 and as old as 82 filed into the WKHS auditorium to take the<a href="http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=facd6db8d7e37210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=dd7ffe9dd4aa3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD" target="_blank"> oath</a> of citizenship (pictured above) and become United States Citizens. Watching them along with family and friends were hundreds of high school seniors getting what had to be the civics lesson of a lifetime. These people came to our country, for some, decades ago and have been pursuing citizenship in some cases for years. For them, today was the culmination of a dream. Judge Watson asked each person to state what citizenship meant to them. For some, it meant the gaining of the same rights as all Americans have. For others, it meant joining their family as citizens. What our students witnessed were people who worked hard and played by the rules, all to get something which they obtained, for the most part, simply by being born in this country. It is unlikely that these kids (or the adults) will view their status as American citizens in quite the same way. <br />
<br />
Mr. Johnson organized quite a show, including "The Star Spangled Banner" from the WKHS marching band, America the Beautiful from the WKHS choir and a fantastic keynote address from WKHS parent Reverend Timothy Ahrens. Reverend Ahrens noted that most of us are second or third generation Americans whose parents or grandparents or great grandparents came from somewhere else. The ceremony concluded with a rendition of "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q65KZIqay4E" target="_blank">Proud to be an American</a>" which was meant to be only on video but wound up being sung spontaneously by everyone in attendance. <br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4SQdKh5QvdDQ7nBnuMLi9u6jwE4I8DElJPGAigFPTENy6KChW4Oq4U7NvzMezAtdUwGh2Q003TiXmynVceIgevQ9rDvKx2DHZtzHWxHZbGgg5thctKj94u_eAFHuWG8wYf5tv1xaHcttQ/s1600/nat3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4SQdKh5QvdDQ7nBnuMLi9u6jwE4I8DElJPGAigFPTENy6KChW4Oq4U7NvzMezAtdUwGh2Q003TiXmynVceIgevQ9rDvKx2DHZtzHWxHZbGgg5thctKj94u_eAFHuWG8wYf5tv1xaHcttQ/s1600/nat3.jpg" height="480" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
The Dispatch covered the event. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/03/21/Immigrants_take_oath_at_Kilbourne.html">http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/03/21/Immigrants_take_oath_at_Kilbourne.html</a><br />
<br />
What was learned this morning won't show up on the state report card and can't be assessed by a proficiency test, but in my opinion, was as important a learning experience as anything our seniors will experience this year. Thanks to WKHS Assistant Principal Kevin Johnson and the entire WKHS team for making it happen. <br />
<br />
Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-43297248431860636332013-03-12T14:25:00.002-04:002013-03-12T14:25:55.807-04:00Breaking a promise, but for a good reason To the credit of our <a href="http://www.worthington.k12.oh.us/domain/38" target="_blank">Board of Education</a> and our adminstration, past and present, we are collectively very big on keeping promises that our district makes to the community, especially with regard to levies. For example, in 2006, we passed a <a href="http://www.mschare.com/bondindex.htm" target="_blank">"no additional millage"</a> bond levy<a href="http://www.mschare.com/bondlevy/boardresolution.pdf" target="_blank"> promising</a> that taxes would never increase above the 3.8 mill rate that taxpayers were already paying. As it happens, bond issues in the state of Ohio are open ended commitments on the part of the taxpayer and the county auditor at the time authorized us to increase the millage above the 3.8 mills. Worthington Schools said no to the additional millage (and money) and to this day, we've kept that promise. <br />
<br />
Fast forward to 2012. In numerous community conversations and in any number of personal discussions, district officials and board members (including me) pointed at the necessity of <a href="http://www.thisweeknews.com/content/stories/worthington/news/2013/02/27/technology-today-tomorrow-board-weighs-bandwidth-needs-against-evolving-digital-world.html" target="_blank">bandwidth expansion</a> in our buildings as one reason for the technology component of the bond levy. It is clear that high speed, universal and unconstrained access to the Internet will be a requirement in all Worthington Schools buildings moving forward. <br />
<br />
After passage of the bond issue and issuance of the bonds, the district formed a bandwidth committee on which I was privileged to participate, and we began to explore options. That's when we discovered that it was in the best interests of Worthington taxpayers for our district to break a promise. <br />
<br />
Allow me to explain. The federal government runs a program called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Rate" target="_blank">e-rate</a>. As part of that program, school districts can apply for reimbursement of technology expenditures based on the percentage of economically disadvantaged students attending school in the district. We anticipate that through the e-rate program, the federal government might pay up to 50% of the costs of the bandwidth expansion. Since the bandwidth expansion is projected to cost 1.5 million dollars up front, we are talking about a significant amount of money. <br />
<br />
Unfortunately, in order to qualify for the e-rate reimbursement, we discovered that we cannot purchase the fiber outright as a capital improvement, it must be purchased as a service. Ohio law says you cannot pay for a service out of bond funds, therefore, for our purposes, the rules of e-rate funding were inconsistent with the rules for what you can pay for with bond funds. If we kept our promise and used bond funds for the bandwidth expansion, we would be turning down up to $750K in federal money. <br />
<br />
At the <a href="http://www.worthington.k12.oh.us/cms/lib02/OH01001900/Centricity/domain/38/2013_meetings/03112013AGENDA.pdf" target="_blank">March 11, 2013</a> board meeting, we made the decision to pay for the bandwidth expansion primarily out of the <a href="http://www.worthington.k12.oh.us/cms/lib02/OH01001900/Centricity/Domain/65/January%202013%20Monthly%20Report.pdf" target="_blank">interest earnings</a> that were accumulated off of the 2006 bond issue. These funds, while not part of the general fund, could have been transferred into the general fund so they are essentially unrestricted funds. In doing so, we qualify for e-rate reimbursement, essentially cutting the local cost of fiber / bandwidth expansion by up to 50%. I am loathe to break promises made during a levy campaign, however, I felt that if Worthington School District residents had this information, they would agree with our conclusions. <br />
<br />
There are two open questions. <br />
<br />
First, since we didn't spend the 2 million dollars we allocated towards bandwidth, we still have those funds available in the technology portion of the bond fund. We can keep them there or move them into a contingency fund, perhaps stretching the bond levy out another year. Second, we will be receiving federal e-rate reimbursement payments over the next 3 years. That money could be deposited into the general fund or it can be used to pay bills. Both questions will be discussed at the next Treasurer's Advisory Committee meeting. <br />
<br />
This blog post is in the interests of full transparency on what was done and why. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-74139845549747544272012-06-09T14:46:00.000-04:002012-06-09T14:46:40.689-04:00The case for a 5.9 mill levy.On June 5, 2012, The Worthington Board of Education voted to send <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/06/06/district-considers-three-levy-proposals.html" target="_blank">3 levy options</a> to the Franklin County Auditor for certification. The three options are: <br />
<br />
1) A 5.9 mill levy with a 40 million dollar bond issue on 2 separate ballots costing $423/year<br />
2) A 6.3 mill levy with a 40 million dollar bond issue on a single ballot costing $451/year<br />
3) A 7.4 mill levy with a 40 million dollar bond issue on a single ballot cost $530/year <br />
<br />
All costs are calculated based on the average house value in Worthington of $234,000. <br />
<br />
The first topic in any levy discussion is whether or not a levy is justified or whether it is possible to live within the confines of current revenue. Our treasurer will point out, correctly, that total revenues in FY13, the last year which can be forecasted with any accuracy given the vagaries of the state budget, are all of 3% higher than total revenues in FY08. The primary reason why is the loss of <a href="http://tax.ohio.gov/divisions/legal/documents/tangible_personal_property_tax_reimbursement_enacted_v3.pdf" target="_blank">TPP reimbursements</a> which, while anticipated, are still sizable. Whether the phase out continues past FY13 is the subject of some debate, but the phase out that has already occurred does partially justify a levy in 2012. Again turning to the <a href="http://www.mschare.com/finance/may2012forecast.pdf" target="_blank">forecast</a>, we see an increase in expenditures of approximately 10.4% from FY08 to FY12. This works out to a 2.6% annualized increase during a period where inflation, while benign, was still around 1.75 and given the rapid increase in health care costs, that difference is certainly understandable. In the period from FY12 to FY16, the treasurer forecasts a total expenditure increase of 10.9%, an average of 2.72% while forecasting a revenue decrease at the same time. The revenue decrease is by no means certain, but I agree with the treasurer that it is more likely to happen than not. Given this dynamic, there is clearly a mathematical case that can be made for the levy. <br />
<br />
By what process should a board of education come up with a levy amount? As a student of this process in Worthington and throughout the state, the methodology varies depending on local circumstances. In Worthington, for at least the last 11 years and inclusive of the levy cycles of 2001, 2004, 2006 and 2009, the methodology employed would be to calculate how long you wanted the levy to last (FY16 in this case), take the deficit at the end of that period (17,000,000 in this case), add a fudge factor, divide by how much a mill raises (1.7 million in this case) and finally, divide by the number of years of collection (3.5 in this case). The only real variable in this calculation has been the size of the fudge factor, so let’s talk about that. In math terms: <br />
<br />
L = (D+F) / P / M <br />
<br />
Where: <br />
<br />
L is the Levy Amount<br />
D is the deficit at the end of the year you are trying to balance (inclusive of existing reserve funds) <br />
F is the Fudge Factor <br />
P is the Years of Collection for the new levy<br />
M is how much is raised by 1 mill <br />
<br />
<br />
The fudge factor, known in financial circles as the cash balance reserve is the amount of cash you want to have available at all times for emergencies and to carry over into the next cycle. The policies vary widely, even in Central Ohio. Our friends in Hilliard, for example, have a <a href="https://www.hilliardschools.org/board/policy/DBDA_CashBalanceReserve.pdf" target="_blank">board policy</a> indicating a minimum of 10%. The Ohio Association of School Business Officials says a minimum of 60 days is justified. <a href="http://www.gfoa.org/downloads/caafr-appropriate-level.pdf" target="_blank">The GFOA concurs, saying 5 to 15% or 1 to 2 months should be sufficient</a>. Dublin City Schools, in their recent decision to run a 6.94 mill operating levy is apparently content, according to the Columbus Dispatch, with a cash reserve of 3.4 million dollars at the end of the forecast period, or a little under 2%. <a href="http://www.westerville.k12.oh.us/docs/FY%2012%205%20Year%20Forecast%20Assumptions%20for%20submission%205-29-12.pdf" target="_blank">Westerville’s stated policy is 30 days</a>, or 8.2% (Page 32 of the link). <br />
<br />
<br />
As we analyze the levy recommendations from our administration, it soon becomes clear that the only thing really under discussion, at least as far as the operating levy goes, is the size of the cash balance at the end of the levy period, which is FY16. The calculation is not difficult: <br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3Io4_pzjubqNsyNeasyLmNzEIaNtpiZEzy5t8yPqRggFwyFhAFn-OQafBEHzzmYOEuAHcrfsvSECMreFSobT84IKziTpsl9xYNczgjmtOBMWhnRR9tmLt7o_KA_KTlhJDWpLCIGopbHuz/s1600/millagedisplay.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" fba="true" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3Io4_pzjubqNsyNeasyLmNzEIaNtpiZEzy5t8yPqRggFwyFhAFn-OQafBEHzzmYOEuAHcrfsvSECMreFSobT84IKziTpsl9xYNczgjmtOBMWhnRR9tmLt7o_KA_KTlhJDWpLCIGopbHuz/s640/millagedisplay.jpg" width="494" /></a><br />
<br />
As the spreadsheet demonstrates, a 6.9 mill levy will leave us with around 24.2 million dollars in the bank at the end of the levy period whereas a 5.9 mill levy will leave us at 18.2 million dollars at the end of FY16 (Upper Chart), however, that does not tell the complete story because the district still maintains a contingency reserve of 3.118 million dollars and could therefore count as cash in the bank should the need arise to balance a budget, therefore, a 5.9 mill levy will leave us with 21.3 million dollars, a few dollars short of the official GFOA recommendation of 60 days (Lower Chart). <br />
<br />
The GFOA recommendation is inclusive of a number of risk factors that wouldn’t necessarily apply to us. For example, a successful levy would include bond money, therefore, we would be protected from such exogenous events as roof repairs, blown boilers, buses failing and so forth. There are only a few events that would materially and negatively change the forecast. The three events that can be game changers are – a really bad state budget that phases out TPP and/or foundation at a rate exceeding that projected in the forecast, a negotiated agreement with significantly higher increases than suggested by the forecast or an outflow of kids to charter schools should the legislature implement something like the original version of HB136. All of these events are possible, none are likely. <br />
<br />
So let’s apply all this to the levy decision. While we haven't received a lot of input, the input we have received suggests taking as little as possible. Absent some kind of incremental levy, a 5.9 mill levy is the lowest amount that keeps us within GFOA guidelines in FY16, the end of the levy cycle. Plugging those numbers into our formula, we have: <br />
<br />
L = (D+F) / P / M <br />
<br />
Where D is the deficit of 17,046,595 - the existing contigency of 3,118,000<br />
and F is 60 days of FY16 estimated expenses (60/365)*130,132,835<br />
<br />
<br />
or L = (13,928,595+ 21,432,679) / 3.5 / 1707933 or <strong>5.915 mills</strong>. I rounded that down to 5.9 mills. <br />
<br />
<br />
The Treasurer's case for 6.9 mills has to do with our policy of "Reasonable Levys at Reasonable Intervals", the concept that our school district should be on a planned levy cycle. A planned levy cycle makes sense when you consider that school districts are flat funded (e.g. no incremental revenue) absent a new levy, unlike cities and states whose revenue is partially dependent on the income tax which will be a function of the economy. His argument is that if we go with 6.9 mills now, the next levy, in 2015, won't have to be higher than what Worthington is generally comfortable with, below 7 mills. I respectfully disagree. To take money from people who are living paycheck to paycheck (or don't have a paycheck) so that Worthington Schools can build up cash balances in excess of even what the GFOA would recommend and with a goal towards softening the next levy in 2015 seems like bad public policy to me. History demonstrates that the last 2 years of the five year forecast are difficult to project with accuracy, so to treat those assumptions as gospel and levy our residents based on that seems wrong. A 5.9 mill levy should leave our district with an appropriate safety net. <br />
<br />
So that's it. The case for the 5.9 mill levy. Thoughts?Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-31876980285272282842012-05-31T13:04:00.001-04:002012-06-02T11:13:25.180-04:00Levy options.There seems to be quite a bit of confusion surrounding the various <a href="http://www.hilliardschools.org/departments/financeBasics.cfm" target="_blank">levy options</a> under consideration by the Worthington School District administration and the Board of Education. This post is an attempt to demystify the options. <br />
<br />
Before doing so, some background might be helpful. There are two distinct sets of "needs" that are going to be included in any funding request eventually. These two needs have two distinct checking accounts and a law that says that you can't commingle the funds. Let's first identify the needs. <br />
<br />
First is the need for additional operating money. The vast majority of operating funds go to pay employee salaries and benefits, but these funds are also used to pay other day to day operating costs like electricity, natural gas, diesel fuel, paper and some larger ticket items like the tuition that Worthington pays to charter schools or community schools to educate kids in our community. To see where the money is being spent today, click <a href="http://www.mschare.com/finance/financeindex.htm" target="_blank">here</a>. <br />
<br />
Second is the need for additional capital improvement money. This money is typically called "bond money" and can be used to pay for items (things) that will be in use for more than 5 years like technology, buses, roofs, painting, repaving, lockers, alarm systems and so forth. By law, this money cannot be used to pay for salaries and benefits. The administration has recommended that we borrow 40 million dollars over a period of 15-18 years. The 40 million dollar figure comes from the maximum amount that can be borrowed without increasing the current 3.8 mill burden on residents for capital improvements. Note that if we didn't borrow this money, the 3.8 mill burden would be 3.0 mills next year and eventually, as previous bonds are paid off, go to zero. I mention this because the levy campaigns like to highlight (correctly) that the bond component is "no additional millage", however, that doesn't mean that it's free, it means that the property tax decreases that would otherwise occur as principal is paid off won't occur. A writeup of what the district wants to spend $40,000,000 on can be found <a href="http://www.worthington.k12.oh.us/uploads/2/File/documents/potential_november_2012_bond_issue.PDF" target="_blank">here</a>. <br />
<br />
The question, and the confusion, come about because the law allows you to ask for both of these things with a single ballot question or with two ballot questions. Further complicating the issue is the fact that the law allows for the phasing in of operating money over a period of time (This is known as the incremental levy) but you cannot combine this with a bond request on a single ballot. <br />
<br />
As a result, on June 5, 2012, the Board and the administration will meet to consider the following options. <br />
<br />
1) An operating levy in combination with a bond levy on a single ballot question. <br />
<br />
This option allows the administration to combine both requests in a single ballot question. Voters can either vote YES to both requests or NO to both requests and you only get one vote. The bond component will be 40 million dollars. The operating component is still unknown. The Treasurer has recommended 6.9 mills, or about $494/year on the average Worthington home of $234,000 dollars. You can calculate the amount for your own home <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmLhWjPb_Yb6dEZ2ZnB6Rkp1Tmlpd3NCTm16U1JCZVE" target="_blank">here</a><br />
<br />
2) An incremental levy and a bond issue on two ballot questions. <br />
<br />
Many residents have contacted us asking for a phased in levy similar to what we did in 2009. The incremental levy in 2009 was 3.9 mills for 2010, 5.4 mills for 2011 and 6.9 mills for 2012 and each year thereafter. The Treasurer has indicated that an incremental levy of 4.9 mills in 2013, 5.9 mills in 2014 and 6.9 mills in 2015 would meet the operating needs of the district. The law does not permit you to combine these two issues on a single ballot question, therefore, two ballot questions would be required. Voters could vote YES on neither issue, one issue or the other issue, or both issues. You can calculate the tax for your own home, by year, <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmLhWjPb_Yb6dEZ2ZnB6Rkp1Tmlpd3NCTm16U1JCZVE&pli=1#gid=0" target="_blank">here</a>. <br />
<br />
3) A "promised incremental levy (PIL)" and a bond issue on a single ballot question. <br />
<br />
Some administrators, including the treasurer, do not believe the district should offer the opportunity to vote on each of the two needs separately. They are concerned that you might vote for one issue or the other issue and not both issues, but they also recognize that in this economy, phasing in the levy is also desirable. Again, the law does not allow the combination of an incremental levy and a bond issue on a single ballot. To get around this, we could offer a "Promised Incremental Levy" which takes advantage of the fact that the school district does not have to collect all of the millage it is allowed to collect. In fact, Worthington Schools has been doing this for 5 years now, collecting less millage than we are otherwise entitled. The Promised Incremental Levy would simply tell the community that in 2013, we would collect only a fraction, perhaps 70% of the 6.9 mills that would appear on the ballot. The next year, 2014, we would collect perhaps 85% and the final year and each year thereafter, we would collect the entire 100% of the 6.9 mills. Note that the increments still need to be discussed - the above is just for illustration. The PIL and the Bond issue could be combined in a single ballot question as in Option #1. One concern with the PIL is whether the community would believe that the Board and the Administration would keep this promise. Once again, <a href="http://www.mschare.com/newsdata/thisweek031407b.htm" target="_blank">Worthington has been collecting less millage</a> than we are entitled to for 5 years now. In addition, the Treasurer said in a community conversation that he would resign before breaking the promise. Frankly, there is no way that the Board or any of its members, or our Superintendent or Treasurer would renege on a promise like this. <br />
<br />
4) Run an Incremental Levy in November of 2012 and a Bond Levy in 2013. <br />
<br />
The desire to run both the operating levy and the bond levy in November is a function of the difficulty of the campaign and the time and resources required, not the needs of the district. Nothing bad is going to happen if the bond money is not approved until the next election in May of 2013. I can certainly understand why the residents who volunteer for levy campaigns don't want to do this twice, however, it is an option and should be considered. <br />
<br />
It is possible to run an incremental levy in November of 2012 (Option 2) and a bond issue in May of 2013. Obviously, voters could approve neither issue, one issue or both issues. The treasurer will point out that a bond issue in May of 2013 would not be "No additional millage" and he is correct, but only because the millage you are already paying for bonds is scheduled to decrease by around 0.8 mills. A bond issue passed in May of 2013 would restore the millage you are paying for capital improvements to 3.8 mills, just as if you passed the issue in 2012. There is no economic difference. Please note that the district does have a considerable cash reserve to handle any emergencies that may come up. In fact, there is about 7 million dollars that is earmarked for contingencies and/or emergencies. <br />
<br />
So those are the four options. Please note that the amounts (6.9 mills operating, 40 million dollars bond) are the treasurer's recommendation. They may or may not be the final numbers. My thoughts on that in a future blog post.Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-63273301145150298792012-03-27T14:31:00.000-04:002012-03-27T14:31:03.779-04:00The New State Report Card proposal.In the <a href="http://education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=129&ContentID=116237" target="_blank">waiver</a> request filed with the federal government to excuse the state from the provisions of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act" target="_blank">No Child Left Behind</a> legislation, the state provided the roadmap for its current thinking with regard to the state report card. What the state of Ohio has decided to do, at least in the short term, is to maintain most of the existing metrics but simply grade downward in an effort to give less "Excellent" ratings on the report card. Whether their motivation was to combat grade inflation or to make their waiver request more appealing to the federal government, a new report card is coming to Ohio. <br />
<br />
The new report card would be made up of 4 components and they are all graded separately and given equal weight in determining the final grade. The components are: <br />
<br />
1) The scores on the proficiencies<br />
<br />
2) The performance index<br />
<br />
3) The value-add assessment <br />
<br />
4) A new metric designed to measure the success a district has at eliminating the achievement gap<br />
<br />
The overall grade is determined by averaging the grades on the 4 metrics. <br />
<br />
Let's look at each in turn. <br />
<br />
<strong>PROFICIENCIES</strong><br />
<br />
At least through 2015, the proficiency tests will remain largely as-is, cut scores and all, so, for example, a district will continue to receive credit for passing the 6th grade reading proficiency if 75% of the students get a 35% on the test. If you pass 90% of the available proficiencies, your district receive an "A" on that particular metric with 80% required to get a "B". <br />
<br />
<strong>PERFORMANCE INDEX</strong><br />
<br />
The performance index metric attempts to give the district credit for those students scoring in the "advanced" and "accelerated" range on the tests, but as we see from the charts in the previous posts, the cut off scores for advanced and accelerated remain at the same low levels that they were before, therefore, the performance index metric should be similarly unchanged. The difference is in the score required to receive an "A". If you receive a performance index of 90% of the maximum, or 108 out of a possible 120 points, you get your "A". Only one school in Worthington, <a href="http://www.worthington.k12.oh.us/schools/index.php?school=29" target="_blank">Evening Street Elementary</a>, received a performance index in excess of 108. It's score was 108.8, however, we must remember that the performance index is only concerned with <strong>how many</strong> students clear the proficient, accelerated and advanced bar and <strong>not necessarily by how much</strong> those students passed the bar. Let's take an example from a school that would narrowly miss getting that magic 108 to receive the "A" on the performance index component. <br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDTvpzVB_e7kYCEsMBqwVesZQa-uOBxquis8vM_BZn8nd33LrOmLV_PR5zhJwLEqSjfAaxAJqn2vQ7EAUnwCEHyCnOoFX8WAsWkRYlc6YVsZ_zl5aFo-qf_HtAUDX4RUw_BTEpDuG-xWZy/s1600/phoenixperformanceindex.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img aea="true" border="0" height="392" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDTvpzVB_e7kYCEsMBqwVesZQa-uOBxquis8vM_BZn8nd33LrOmLV_PR5zhJwLEqSjfAaxAJqn2vQ7EAUnwCEHyCnOoFX8WAsWkRYlc6YVsZ_zl5aFo-qf_HtAUDX4RUw_BTEpDuG-xWZy/s640/phoenixperformanceindex.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Performance Index Calculation for Phoenix Middle School, Worthington OH</td></tr>
</tbody></table><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The example demonstrates that even with 95% of the scores being proficient and fully 2/3 being accelerated or advanced, it still isn't enough to earn that "A", apparently because the state realizes that with the cut scores being as low as they are, "Accelerated" or "Advanced" simply isn't good enough any more. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><strong>VALUE ADD</strong></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The next component is "value add" and this is the description from the waiver request: </div><br />
<em>Value-Added: While performance scores demonstrate a student’s level of proficiency, Value-Added </em><br />
<em>measures the effects of schools on their students’ growth. It is calculated only for schools with students in any Grades 4-8. Ohio, using the SAS® at EVAAS® model computes a Value-Added measure for each school and district in English language arts and mathematics and reports whether the expected growth has been met (a year’s growth in a year’s time), exceeded (more than a year’s growth in a year’s time) or not met (less than a year’s growth in a year’s time). </em><br />
<br />
Interested readers can learn more about value-add <a href="http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=117&ContentID=91231&Content=91251" target="_blank">here</a>. <br />
<br />
For purposes of this discussion, value-add was not changed in the new state report card. What was changed was the impact that value-add could have on the overall grade. Prior to the new state report card methodology, value-add was used to modify the overall grade. This was the algorithm used: <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA4y8YytnKHdf70HU2qG4vQYoYnqb_YO0hgyVzHs_zzIaZIe5pudCWQqRC69kwD5OTA9jkV5vQq0aXh3DEi2nnqvxBokOE2x1_F-UkrMuqZS_YEail_1VaySPvuovupY-AigUj_aqTd8NT/s1600/valueadddescription.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img aea="true" border="0" height="280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA4y8YytnKHdf70HU2qG4vQYoYnqb_YO0hgyVzHs_zzIaZIe5pudCWQqRC69kwD5OTA9jkV5vQq0aXh3DEi2nnqvxBokOE2x1_F-UkrMuqZS_YEail_1VaySPvuovupY-AigUj_aqTd8NT/s640/valueadddescription.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Value Add impact on final report card grade</td></tr>
</tbody></table><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">With the new methodology, value-add is a full partner in the calculation. If you exceed Value-Add, you get an "A" for that component and the "A" will get averaged in to the final grade. This chart shows the new algorithm: </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjN7JvkpGEclNUCDTPS1kuBvmxTHVsiAlmW_AborgVUu-nHJCKqFwjFjKgxdlSXJ06NaJNmaXEHXdIixZ3uVToYZniHyYMDjDA-vDp35By2dSQVVGRTPynsvLapKFQ-dDzrx2ezvZC0ffNc/s1600/newvalueadd.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img aea="true" border="0" height="285" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjN7JvkpGEclNUCDTPS1kuBvmxTHVsiAlmW_AborgVUu-nHJCKqFwjFjKgxdlSXJ06NaJNmaXEHXdIixZ3uVToYZniHyYMDjDA-vDp35By2dSQVVGRTPynsvLapKFQ-dDzrx2ezvZC0ffNc/s320/newvalueadd.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
Thus, under the old system, it was possible to be "excellent" with a performance index of 90 or if you met 20 of the 26 standards as long as your value-add scores indicated "above expected" growth for two years running. Under the new system, that will no longer be possible. <br />
<br />
<strong>ANNUAL MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES</strong><br />
<br />
The latest edition to the eduspeak vocabulary is "Annual Measurable Objectives" or AMO's.<br />
<br />
The AMO metric is designed to replace the previous level of proficiency that was required by No Child Left Behind. NCLB required, by 2014, that 100% of kids achieve proficiency. Scholars can argue whether that was ever a realistic goal, but states eagerly took the money offered by the federal government back in 2001 and then back loaded the proficiency requirements. Fast forward 10 years, and as the mandatory levels of proficiency started to increase as we got closer to 2014, panic set it. It is fair to say that the entire purpose of the <a href="http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2012/02/29/ohio-wants-to-nix-no-child-left-behind-100-percent-student-success-goal/" target="_blank">waiver request</a> is to relieve Ohio of the burden of a 100% proficiency requirement and the associated penalties when they are not met. The new goals, the "AMO's" are derived by taking the percentage of Ohio's kids that are currently deemed as not proficient in reading (18.1%), establishing a somewhat arbitrary goal of getting half of them to proficient within 6 years (e.g. 9% additional proficiency in 6 years) and using equal increments, so the bar is moved by 1.5% each year. This would then apply to all subgroups. A similar methodology is employed for the graduation percentage component of the annual measurable objectives. A somewhat complex calculation than goes into arriving at a final letter grade for the achievement gap component of the state report card. <br />
<br />
The big difference between AYP and AMO's is this. In order for AYP to negatively impact a final rating on the existing report card, you would have to miss AYP in the SAME subgroup for three (3) consecutive years. Of course, given the requirement to be 100% proficient, absent the waiver, that would happen to every district sooner or later, but not for several years. With the new methodology, AMO's are a full partner in the calculation and the failure to meet the annual objectives could impact your rating in the current year. <br />
<br />
This new system will be in place, assuming the legislature goes along, for the current year (2011-2012), so it is important to understand the differences between the old methodology and the new methodology, but it is also important to understand that the State Report Card will be changing fairly dramatically a few years from now to meet the demands of the assessment component of the common core. <br />
<br />
The new methodology may therefore have a life span of a few years until the Common Core assessments kick in. Where this leaves Worthington is a bit unknown but as with most things, knowledge is power so understanding the methodology behind the new report card should give us a leg up on figuring out whether Worthington will be "A" rated or, if not, why not.Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-77633891680767762782012-03-17T14:25:00.000-04:002012-03-17T14:25:26.080-04:00Grade inflation in the state of Ohio.This post is about grade inflation in the state and the broader question of whether the rankings that districts receive on the state report card is truly reflective of the "quality" of the school district. In this context, grade inflation refers to the elevation, over time, of Ohio's School District Rankings and the number of districts receiving top marks from the state. The first thing we need to determine is whether grade inflation is real. Over the last year or so, an increasing number of <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/03/20/schools-pass-rates-on-state-tests-arent-full-story.html" target="_blank">articles</a>, <a href="http://www.educationoh.com/2012/02/false-advertising.html" target="_blank">bloggers </a>and <a href="http://www.oagc.com/files/OAGC_Grading_On_A_Curve_Final.pdf" target="_blank">reports</a> seem to think so. Let's start with some statistics. <br />
<br />
This was the breakdown in the 2004-2005 school year: <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0O8F2ykavpMkkEapOoatShl7Ju6jmEzhX9enAM7AMgan7o250ItOVhasAAN1v4gGkMdc5UJwQHkGlEE3P3p9ovPyQli4fbR-Xb4JEnWalXx_-MESNwO17oDyezGlt-KxyL_B1NTnTUM1M/s1600/ohio2004.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="252" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0O8F2ykavpMkkEapOoatShl7Ju6jmEzhX9enAM7AMgan7o250ItOVhasAAN1v4gGkMdc5UJwQHkGlEE3P3p9ovPyQli4fbR-Xb4JEnWalXx_-MESNwO17oDyezGlt-KxyL_B1NTnTUM1M/s640/ohio2004.jpg" width="640" yda="true" /></a></div>Where 18% of school districts were rated excellent and a combination of 67% were rated as excellent of effective. <br />
<br />
Fast forward to 2011 where the chart looks like this: <br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTInYXXKOy-CWj7m3O83e_VbaR_uqjCF32uG_M5IDP4LlUP-AKOdI1KZG-j94EjCisoA3eKIE___nYcgVmJ65njrgKCI_cLdAT62HZW-3OiZPqNWauEaSLmudIMCkFzqRlk5Ssn5h0EsQW/s1600/ohio2011result.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTInYXXKOy-CWj7m3O83e_VbaR_uqjCF32uG_M5IDP4LlUP-AKOdI1KZG-j94EjCisoA3eKIE___nYcgVmJ65njrgKCI_cLdAT62HZW-3OiZPqNWauEaSLmudIMCkFzqRlk5Ssn5h0EsQW/s320/ohio2011result.jpg" width="320" yda="true" /></a></div><br />
Where 58% of school districts are now rated excellent or higher and an astounding 93% of school districts are considered effective. <br />
<br />
Did Ohio really make all these academic gains or did the state manipulate the report card such that it now provides a distorted view of reality? <br />
<br />
Let's look at a few other data points. The first comes to us from the Ohio Board of Regents where they track the success of Ohio graduates who go on to Ohio colleges and see how many of them require remediation - essentially, to retake high school courses when they get to college. If 93% of Ohio's School Districts were effective, you would anticipate this to be a relatively low number. <br />
<br />
Unfortunately, it is not. NPR is <a href="http://stateimpact.npr.org/ohio/2012/02/03/ohio-aims-to-cut-back-on-remedial-college-classes/">reporting</a> that 41% of freshman from Ohio High Schools have to take at least one remediation class once they get to college. The report goes on to say that an analysis of Ohio Board of Regents data shows that in nearly 80 high schools rated A or A+, <strong>at least half of students</strong> who enroll in Ohio public colleges must take remedial math and/or English. <br />
<br />
That is an astounding statistic! Your local high school is rated "Excellent" or even "Excellent with Distinction" and yet, half of its graduates have to essentially retake high school classes in order to be successful in college, yet, this applies to 20% of those districts with that excellent rating.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.oagc.com/" target="_blank">Ohio Association of Gifted Children </a>produced a <a href="http://www.oagc.com/files/OAGC_Grading_On_A_Curve_Final.pdf" target="_blank">report </a>that was a less subtle about this problem. The report, entitled "Grading on a Curve, the illusion of excellence in Ohio Schools" made the case that grade inflation is taking place and that the state was essentially lying to its citizens about the quality of its schools. Charts such as this one: <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdd24r33dss4dsurAJJQsMvwE4zTKpCAseIf8_ZMwO61aVbjgsZNWkc-8qRIERK9pwyzS4QZxWqxx48xSfHlB9p9jvvMLTsUEO9mLNBB8fckltgu9eRzvAYSIcB14rhWdUT1-RsmQM4vdy/s1600/oaavsnaep.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="231" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdd24r33dss4dsurAJJQsMvwE4zTKpCAseIf8_ZMwO61aVbjgsZNWkc-8qRIERK9pwyzS4QZxWqxx48xSfHlB9p9jvvMLTsUEO9mLNBB8fckltgu9eRzvAYSIcB14rhWdUT1-RsmQM4vdy/s320/oaavsnaep.jpg" width="320" yda="true" /></a></div>compares the number of children scoring "advanced" on the Ohio Achievement Test vs. the number of children scoring advanced on the <a href="http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/">National Assessment of Education Progress</a> (NAEP). <br />
<br />
Obviously, Ohio is reporting a much higher percentage of children as "Advanced" then what you find on the national test. Of course, while Ohio isn't any better or worse than many other states, the state is using terminology that would seem to imply that it is. <br />
<br />
One of the more egregious examples of how Ohio has created an illusion of excellence according to the OAGC report is through the use of "cut scores". A cut score is defined as the passing grade a student must achieve on one of the proficiency tests. The number that gets reported is that percentage of children that have achieved the passing grade, but up until this <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/03/20/schools-pass-rates-on-state-tests-arent-full-story.html" target="_blank">article</a>, the grade that was considered passing never got any attention. The cut scores for the Ohio Achievement Tests in 2011 are documented in this chart: <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFQacDexETAQMaR-Ay8mo3MDxbpGUF5TDSW2zkrY6alJWSqcTvxBcZQPdG9ExVDUVA5K7h61jcqHTQ0e0Tfli97iveL0qaRk1JLTfRtHTB_ZJvSc-8T3qB8Y_nY-vjXJdWFsQiSvXYo_wq/s1600/cutscores.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="364" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFQacDexETAQMaR-Ay8mo3MDxbpGUF5TDSW2zkrY6alJWSqcTvxBcZQPdG9ExVDUVA5K7h61jcqHTQ0e0Tfli97iveL0qaRk1JLTfRtHTB_ZJvSc-8T3qB8Y_nY-vjXJdWFsQiSvXYo_wq/s640/cutscores.jpg" width="640" yda="true" /></a></div><br />
So, for example, to receive a passing grade for 6th grade reading, a student must answer 17 out of 49 questions correctly for a total of 35%. If 75% of the students accomplish that goal, the school or the district will be designated at having met that state standard. To receive a designation of "Advanced" in 5th grade math, a student must receive a score of 73%. The categories, proficient, accelerated and advanced all go into the calculation for the districts performance index. <br />
<br />
The OAGC report and the Dispatch reporting has numerous other examples of why the State Report Card is not a meaningful indicator of school district quality, so much so that the state has decided to take action. The next blog post will cover the new state report card and whether what was done will adequately address the problem.Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-84851658123740157262012-02-06T14:30:00.000-05:002012-02-06T14:30:41.035-05:00Value-Add based Teacher EvaluationsThis is an interesting and unprecedented time for reform minded school board members and district administrators. One of the reforms being pushed by education policy specialists is to have meaningful teacher evaluations. These evaluations will (eventually) inform everything from personnel decisions to hiring decisions to compensation decisions. It is clearly an idea whose time has come. In Ohio, House Bill 153 mandates teachers to be evaluated according to state-ordered criteria and further indicates that 50% of that evaluation has to be from the results of student growth measures meaning, I suppose, standardized tests where they exist or other assessments where they do not. Student growth measures is eduspeak for "Value Add" which is itself eduspeak for the concept of trying to determine the impact that a school district, a school or a teacher had on student growth when you filter out all other contributing factors such as socio-economic condition. <br />
<br />
In Worthington, work on eventual compliance with this mandate is being done through the "Race to the Top (RTTT) committee" on which I've represented the Worthington Board of Education for 18 months now. I've concluded that to some extent, compliance with the mandate will be difficult because filtering out all contributing factors other than the impact of a specific educator on student growth will prove to be quite elusive for a multitude of reasons. I wanted to post a blog entry to talk about some of the problems with using student growth measures (AKA Value Add) but someone beat me to it. The following is a blog post from David B. Cohen. I believe it captures the elusive nature of fairly evaluating teachers using Value Add. Note that the specific examples are from California, meaning California law and California standards, but Ohio would have similar, though not identical concerns. None of this is to say that Value Add cannot one day be used for teacher evaluations, just that we need to firm up the process of filtering out extraneous material to get at the "real" value-add. <br />
<br />
The source material can be found here: <br />
<br />
<a href="http://accomplishedcaliforniateachers.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/vam-on-trial/">http://accomplishedcaliforniateachers.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/vam-on-trial/</a><br />
<br />
Turning the Tables: VAM on Trial<br />
<br />
<br />
November 2, 2011<br />
<br />
Los Angeles Unified School District is embroiled in negotiations over teacher evaluations, and will now face pressure from outside the district intended to force counter-productive teacher evaluation methods into use. Yesterday, I read this Los Angeles Times article about a lawsuit to be filed by an unnamed “group of parents and education advocates.” The article notes that, “The lawsuit was drafted in consultation with EdVoice, a Sacramento-based group. Its board includes arts and education philanthropist Eli Broad, former ambassador Frank Baxter and healthcare company executive Richard Merkin.” While the defendant in the suit is technically LAUSD, the real reason a lawsuit is necessary according to the article is that “United Teachers Los Angeles leaders say tests scores are too unreliable and narrowly focused to use for high-stakes personnel decisions.” Note that, once again, we see a journalist telling us what the unions say and think, without ever, ever bothering to mention why, offering no acknowledgment that the bulk of the research and the three leading organizations for education research and measurement (AERA, NCME, and APA) say the same thing as the union (or rather, the union is saying the same thing as the testing expert). Upon what research does the other side base arguments in favor of using test scores and “value-added” measurement (VAM) as a legitimate measurement of teacher effectiveness? They never answer, but the debate somehow continues ad nauseum. <br />
<br />
It’s not that the plaintiffs in this case are wrong about the need to improve teacher evaluations. Accomplished California Teachers has published a teacher evaluation report that has concrete suggestions for improving evaluations as well, and we are similarly disappointed in the implementation of the Stull Act, which has been allowed to become an empty exercise in too many schools and districts.<br />
<br />
Over at EdWeek, Stephen Sawchuk picked up the story and wondered if this action is a sign of things to come – litigating education policy. On one hand, I hate to think that we would resort to the courts to settle matters that can and should be addressed by professional educators based on an understanding of research and best professional practices. On the other hand, I figured a good defense attorney would shred these plaintiffs and the credibility of their cause. It will be interesting to see the actual language in their lawsuit, but the broader concept is already familiar. It’s just never been given a courtroom treatment that I know of. So, I’ve taken the liberty of dreaming up the court transcript ahead of time (using Q: for the defense attorney’s questions and A: for the plaintiff’s answers). Enjoy this cross-examination.<br />
<br />
Q: You are demanding that LAUSD use measures of student growth in teacher evaluations, is that correct?<br />
<br />
A: Yes.<br />
<br />
Q: And you believe that student test scores are a measure of growth that would reflect teaching quality, correct?<br />
<br />
A: Yes.<br />
<br />
Q: If LAUSD were to adopt a policy that attributes the growth or lack of growth in student test scores to the student’s teacher, and uses the scores of all students to evaluate the teacher’s effectiveness, you would drop this lawsuit, is that correct?<br />
<br />
A: Yes.<br />
<br />
Q: How often are these tests administered?<br />
<br />
A: Once per year.<br />
<br />
Q: And the district has no way of knowing if the student’s performance on that day reflects the student’s ability or perhaps reflects some trauma, distress, boredom, distraction, or rebelliousness?<br />
<br />
A: No.<br />
<br />
Q: And for students who have changed schools, or changed teachers during the year, there’s no way to factor that into the analysis of data when a student simply shows up on one roster or another, right?<br />
<br />
A: That could be adjusted.<br />
<br />
Q: There’s no study that would guide you in how to do that with any accuracy, is there?<br />
<br />
A: I don’t know.<br />
<br />
Q: No evidence that a move at the mid-point of the year gives each teacher half the responsibility for the student’s learning, or that each week has a proportionate effect?<br />
<br />
A: None that I know of.<br />
<br />
Q: And would the degree of change in a certain classroom affect students in that classroom who had not been part of any change?<br />
<br />
A: I don’t know.<br />
<br />
Q: Does it seem likely that changing the students in a class would change the class itself and affect some of the students who had been there all along?<br />
<br />
A: I guess so.<br />
<br />
Q: But you would have no way of knowing which students were affected or how they were affected?<br />
<br />
A: Not really, no.<br />
<br />
Q: Now, if I were a high school English teacher, I would be responsible for teaching in four standards areas, but would the test cover all four of those areas?<br />
<br />
A: No.<br />
<br />
Q: How many does it cover?<br />
<br />
A: Two.<br />
<br />
Q: You’re including writing when you say “two” but in fact there’s no writing on the tests currently used, is there?<br />
<br />
A: No.<br />
<br />
Q: So more accurately, the test covers one out of the four standards areas?<br />
<br />
A: Yes.<br />
<br />
Q: Does the test cover every standard in reading?<br />
<br />
A: No.<br />
<br />
Q: So, you’re proposing basing a significant part of an English teacher’s evaluation, for example, on a test result that covers a small fraction of the standards?<br />
<br />
A: It’s the only objective way.<br />
<br />
Q: So your answer is yes?<br />
<br />
A: Yes.<br />
<br />
Q: By objective, you mean it’s the same for every student and teacher?<br />
<br />
A: Yes.<br />
<br />
Q: Does every teacher have an equal assignment, equal students, classes, and resources?<br />
<br />
A: No.<br />
<br />
Q: So, you do not concern yourself with objectivity in all of the factors affecting the teacher’s work, but you figure you can evaluate different teachers working with different students and different classes using the same test that covers only a fraction of their standards?<br />
<br />
A: Yes.<br />
<br />
Q: So is that an objective process for evaluation, or an arbitrary process with an objective element in it?<br />
<br />
[Plaintiffs' counsel objects to argumentative question. Judge upholds the objection.]<br />
<br />
Q: Do the words “objective” and “fair” have the same definition?<br />
<br />
A: I couldn’t say.<br />
<br />
Q: I could give an objective geometry test to every student in an algebra class, but would that be fair?<br />
<br />
A: Okay, I see. They have different meanings.<br />
<br />
Q: So your claim that the test is objective doesn’t cover the question of fairness, does it?<br />
<br />
A: But it is fair!<br />
<br />
Q: Please answer the question. A claim of objectivity is different from a claim of fairness, correct?<br />
<br />
A: Yes.<br />
<br />
Q: So an objective test may be inappropriate for certain students and therefore unfair, no matter how objective?<br />
<br />
A: I would say that the test is fair to everyone.<br />
<br />
Q: Like a geometry test for algebra students?<br />
<br />
A: Well, no.<br />
<br />
Q: Does a student’s linguistic skill relate to their success in a test that requires use of language?<br />
<br />
A: Of course.<br />
<br />
Q: So a test given in an unfamiliar language might yield a result that reflects linguistic confusion rather than conceptual confusion, or poor teaching?<br />
<br />
A: We could adjust for language in a teacher’s evaluation.<br />
<br />
Q: In what way?<br />
<br />
A: If the student is still learning English their scores could be separated out.<br />
<br />
Q: What if a student did well on the test despite being new to the language?<br />
<br />
A: Well, we can’t just use the scores that help the teacher. We have to be fair.<br />
<br />
Q: You mean objective?<br />
<br />
A: Yes.<br />
<br />
Q: Because actually, it would be fair to use the results that are valid and exclude the results that are invalid. Are you suggesting that such a determination could be made for each student, or that we should come up with a single formula and stick to it?<br />
<br />
A: Just use a single formula.<br />
<br />
Q: So regardless of the student’s actual linguistic knowledge, you would suggest making assumptions based on a certain number of years for students to learn enough academic English.<br />
<br />
A: That would be logical.<br />
<br />
Q: No matter the variables in the student’s instruction in English or the amount of time it actually takes them to learn English?<br />
<br />
A: It’s the only fair way.<br />
<br />
Q: Fair, or objective?<br />
<br />
A: Objective.<br />
<br />
Q: Objective regarding the student’s knowledge and skill, or objective regarding only measures of time?<br />
<br />
A: Time.<br />
<br />
Q: Is it fair to use value-added measurements to rank teachers even when numerous studies show that it is a volatile measure with error rates exceeding 25%?<br />
<br />
A: It would only be one of multiple measures.<br />
<br />
Q: That wasn’t my question. Is it fair to use an error-prone measure?<br />
<br />
A: It’s not fair to exclude student performance from evaluations.<br />
<br />
Q: Your Honor, would you instruct the witness to answer the question?<br />
<br />
A: I’ll answer. It may not always be fair in every case, but no method is perfect.<br />
<br />
Q: You’re suing the Los Angeles Unified School District to compel them to use a teacher evaluation method that is prone to errors and unfair to perhaps a quarter of the teachers evaluated in this manner, is that correct?<br />
<br />
A: Yes! The alternative is the status quo, which is intolerable.<br />
<br />
Q: But there are thriving, high-quality schools around the U.S. and around the world that are not using value-added measures. Doesn’t that prove that there are alternatives to the LAUSD status quo that are something other than the remedy you seek to impose?<br />
<br />
[Plaintiffs' counsel objects to argumentative question. Judge upholds the objection.]<br />
<br />
Q: Have you heard of the National Council for Measurement in Education, the American Psychology Association, the American Education Research Association?<br />
<br />
A: Yes.<br />
<br />
Q: Are you aware of their position on the lack of validity in using tests designed for one purpose and then used for another purpose?<br />
<br />
A: More or less.<br />
<br />
Q: I’m quoting from their joint position statement on this topic: “Tests valid for one use may be invalid for another. Each separate use of a high-stakes test, for individual certification, for school evaluation, for curricular improvement, for increasing student motivation, or for other uses requires a separate evaluation of the strengths and limitations of both the testing program and the test itself.” Does that sound familiar to you?<br />
<br />
A: More or less.<br />
<br />
Q: In other words, you’ve heard this argument before?<br />
<br />
A: Yes.<br />
<br />
Q: Is it fair to say that these are the three leading organizations for educational measurement and research?<br />
<br />
A: I suppose so.<br />
<br />
Q: Are you a professional organization for educational research and measurement?<br />
<br />
A: No.<br />
<br />
Q: Do you think it’s advisable, or even responsible, to ignore the policy position of these leading organizations?<br />
<br />
A: But we know that teachers are the most important in-school factor on student performance!<br />
<br />
Q: Okay, no argument there. But you have no basis upon which to argue against the validity issues raised in that quote, do you?<br />
<br />
A: No.<br />
<br />
Q: Now, taking up your contention that the teacher is the most important in-school factor, could you say most important out of how many factors?<br />
<br />
A: No.<br />
<br />
Q: You don’t know how many factors influence student performance?<br />
<br />
A: No.<br />
<br />
Q: If I threw out a number, like five, would you guess that it’s too low, too high, or about right?<br />
<br />
A: That sounds too low.<br />
<br />
Q: How about ten?<br />
<br />
A: I don’t know, that might be right.<br />
<br />
Q: Fifteen?<br />
<br />
A: Maybe.<br />
<br />
Q: Just hypothetically, could we proceed on the assumption there are ten factors in schools, other than teachers, that affect student performance?<br />
<br />
A: Okay, yes.<br />
<br />
Q: Would you expect every factor to have the same influence on every student, or would some factors have strong influences on one student and almost no influence on another student?<br />
<br />
A: It would vary.<br />
<br />
Q: If you wanted to design a fair formula, you would take those ten factors into account?<br />
<br />
A: Yes.<br />
<br />
Q: Even though you can’t say for sure how much each factor affects the student?<br />
<br />
A: Yes.<br />
<br />
Q: You can’t even say with certainty that a specific factor has any effect on a certain student or group of students?<br />
<br />
A: No.<br />
<br />
Q: So, let’s assume that each of those ten factors could play out in only two different ways: how many possible combinations do we have for each student?<br />
<br />
A: Twenty.<br />
<br />
Q: I’m sorry to correct your math, but actually, that would be ten-squared, or one-hundred possibilities.<br />
<br />
A: Oh, yes, one hundred, I see.<br />
<br />
Q: But we don’t know for sure how many factors to consider and what they are. And if we could actually identify fifteen variables instead of ten, and if each variable could play out in three different ways, would it surprise you to know that there would be 3,375 possible combinations?<br />
<br />
A: That sounds like a lot, but you’re just playing with numbers.<br />
<br />
Q: “Just playing with numbers.” I see. So just because something is true mathematically or statistically, it doesn’t necessarily translate into an actionable policy?<br />
<br />
A: That’s not what I said.<br />
<br />
Q: Of course you wouldn’t say that. Your case is predicated on the idea that because you can make value-added calculations that show some teachers are less effective than others, it therefore makes sense to use the numbers in policy that leads to the outcomes you want. Though again, the actual experts in educational measurement would warn against that, correct?<br />
<br />
[Plaintiffs' counsel objects to argumentative question. Judge upholds the objection.]<br />
<br />
Q: That’s what you need to do if you use test scores and value-added measures in teacher evaluation, isn’t it? Play with the numbers? You would need to come up with a formula that makes certain assumptions about the effect of each factor, even though you can’t test your assumptions?<br />
<br />
A: They’ve been researched!<br />
<br />
Q: But you just said that we can’t assume factors are the same for each student – or did you mean that these students in this hypothetical school will have been researched before any formulas are applied to them?<br />
<br />
A: No.<br />
<br />
Q: Okay, to be fair, let’s assume that we can come up with a formula for each of these individual factors. Wouldn’t it also be necessary to know about the interactions of the variables?<br />
<br />
A: What do you mean?<br />
<br />
Q: Well, perhaps we can apply a statistical control for homelessness, another to control for the time of day that the student studies a certain subject, and another to control for the change from last year’s 50-minute class periods to this year’s 90-minute class periods. Is it likely that there is any research on the effects for homeless students in longer classes at different times of day?<br />
<br />
A: No.<br />
<br />
Q: So when we combine factors, we not only make assumptions about each one, but also assume that these factors do not influence each other in any way, is that right?<br />
<br />
A: You can’t study every little thing.<br />
<br />
Q: So, if this were a medicine, you’d be comfortable saying that we have plenty of science about the ingredients and we don’t need to study them in this particular combination in order to assume the effects the medicine will have?<br />
<br />
A: I don’t know anything about medicine.<br />
<br />
Q: Have you ever been a teacher?<br />
<br />
A: No.<br />
<br />
Q: Thank you. No further questions.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
AdvertisementMarc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-13231144091856751932012-01-29T13:51:00.000-05:002012-01-29T13:51:40.789-05:00District BoundariesPeriodically, the subject of district boundaries comes up. Why are any properties in the city of Columbus zoned for the Worthington School District. Most people think that Worthington is part of the <a href="http://www.wcsoh.org/content_page.aspx?cid=478">"Win-Win"</a> agreement but this is not correct. Instead, the boundaries between Worthington and Columbus were first drawn up by an agreement between the two school boards back in 1968. <a href="http://www.mschare.com/uploads/1968proceedingsdefining%20WSDboundaries.pdf">This is the documentation</a> for that agreement. <br />
<br />
As a result, Worthington does not have to periodically <a href="http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2010/may/03/coalition-opposes-win-win-agreement-renewal-ar-67224/">renew</a> the "Win-Win" agreement as other districts do.Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-17381054289301579042011-11-21T10:12:00.000-05:002011-11-21T10:12:31.232-05:00Merit PayLast week, I was contacted by a government student at Worthington Kilbourne High School who was doing a paper on Merit Pay. He wanted to interview me as his teacher told him I was a proponent of Merit Pay. Because of the difficulty in scheduling, I told him to send me a list of questions and I thought the responses might be an interesting blog post. Here are the questions (and answers) from the "interview". The questions are in normal type and the responses are in <strong>bold.</strong> <br />
<br />
1. How do you feel about the current, mostly seniority based system for determining teachers pay and why?<br />
<br />
<strong>Before answering this question and some of the others, I think we need to reach some understanding of why people get paid what they get paid. Why does Mark Sanchez, QB for the New York Jets, make 15 million dollars per year while the guy selling beer in the stands makes $10/hour. How and why do corporations pay what they pay. </strong><strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong>This is a complicated question but the short answer is that in the United States and in most capitalist societies, there is a law of supply and demand. If the New York Jets could hire a similar quality quarterback for less than they are paying Sanchez, they would do it. If you couldn't find workers willing to sell beer in the stands for less than $20/hour, you would have to pay that much to attract workers. </strong><strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong>Now let's look at teachers. How much do we have to pay to attract quality teachers into the profession and retain them once they are employed? There answer is - no one knows because a free market does not exist in the education profession. In a perfect world, since we are using public taxpayer dollars, we would pay exactly what we must to attract the quality we desire, no more and no less. Lacking a free market, there is absolutely no correlation between what you spend and what you get. You can spend $90,000/year and get a horrible teacher who makes that much money because they have been there 30 years, and you can spend $40,000 to get a fantastic teacher who works 5 times as hard but makes that much money because they just started teaching. Furthermore, because there is no free market, experienced, quality teachers cannot go to other districts and negotiate their own raises. In fact, after about 10 years in the business, teachers are forced to stay in their current districts or take a pay cut. </strong><br />
<strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong>There is also the reality that some teaching jobs are harder to fill than others. In Worthington, we needed to hire a high school physics teacher. We received 3 applications of which we thought 1 was qualified. Each year, we also need to hire elementary school classroom teachers. We get literally hundreds, perhaps thousands of applications for each one of these positions. Clearly, this is because the person qualified to teach high school physics is also qualified to work in the private sector, and those jobs pay more so few qualified individuals want to go into teaching. I want to pay high school physics teachers more so I can attract them to Worthington but I am not permitted to do so by the seniority system. Likewise, I can attract quality elementary school teachers for much less than I am paying now. If I was permitted to do so, I would be able to employ more teachers, lower class sizes and increase offerings for students. </strong><strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong>With that as background, the answer to your first question is that I think the seniority system for determining pay for teachers does a disservice to the taxpayers, the students and the teachers. We should be able to pay great teachers more, we should let market forces work for determining how much taxpayers must pay to attract quality and we should be able to provide the best education experience for the students without the artificial constraints imposed by the seniority system. Please note, however, that this first question did not address "Merit Pay". There are two concepts which are sometimes confused. The first is "Merit Pay", the ability to pay teachers extra for better teaching or for a better quantifiable result, the second is "Differentiated Compensation" which is the ability to pay teachers based on supply and demand or for quality. </strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
2. Can teachers performance be effectively evaluated by testing? Why or why not?<br />
<br />
<strong>Not completely and sometimes, not at all, for a variety of different reasons. Whole books have been written on this subject. Standardized tests will provide some insight into how well a teacher performs their task, but there are a multitude of other factors that one must consider when determining teacher quality. I'll offer two (fictitious) examples to illustrate the point. Let's say that you have an Algebra 2 teacher at WKHS. In her class are kids who took Algebra 1 from a variety of teachers at McCord, some good and some not-so-good. The kids who did not have quality instruction in Algebra 1 will not do well in Algebra 2 through no fault of the Algebra 2 teacher. The second example is even more obvious. Some kids are not prepared to go to school each morning. Their parents are struggling to make a living, they don't have time to help the kids with homework, they don't have internet access at home and they can barely afford breakfast. Other kids have the best of everything, including tutors if they need extra help. Any attempt at evaluating teachers must take these factors into consideration. </strong><strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong>In addition, there are some areas where testing is subjective. For example, how would you judge a theatre teacher or a music teacher lacking standardized tests. In these situations, other metrics would need to be used. Finally, there are a range of categories where some teachers excel in ways that don't show up on tests. For example, a student may reach out to a teacher in a time of crisis in their life and the teacher's actions might have kept the student from making a serious mistake, getting on drugs or worse. Some teachers get that connection with their students and others go through the motions. All of that must be part of a teacher's evaluation. </strong><br />
<br />
3. Many say that paying teachers based on years of teaching experience is unfair, and often results in lower pay for the best teachers. Is this a common problem?<br />
<br />
<strong>To the extent that quality can be measured (a prerequisite for determining who the "best" teachers are), most studies show no correlation between quality and seniority, therefore, there is also no correlation between pay and quality. Since there is no correlation between pay and quality, it is fair to say that the "best" teachers will sometimes receive lower pay. In your own high school experience, did you have really good teachers who were just starting out, or really bad teachers who were older? How often this occurs would be difficult to measure but to the extent that it does happen, the pay differential would be unfair. </strong><br />
<strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong>This is one such study that you can use for background information: </strong><br />
<strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong><a href="http://www.cedr.us/papers/working/CEDR%20WP%202011-1.2%20Teacher%20Layoffs%20(6-15-2011).pdf">http://www.cedr.us/papers/working/CEDR%20WP%202011-1.2%20Teacher%20Layoffs%20(6-15-2011).pdf</a></strong><br />
<br />
4. The goal of merit pay is to reward the best teachers. Is this ideal and is this possible?<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>First, I do not agree with the premise of the question. The purpose of strategic compensation is to advance the goals of the organization. School districts are best served with quality teachers, therefore, the purpose of strategic compensation in a school district is to attract and retain quality teachers. Merit Pay is a component, a small component, of strategic compensation. Arguably, a district with merit pay might be more attractive to a quality teacher than a district without merit pay. The other thing to keep in mind is that as we look at teaching as a profession, we need to fix the fact that there is no career path for teachers that does not lead to administration. A teacher essentially has the same job in year 30 as they did in year 1. We need to define that career path and recognize that there are other ways to reward teachers than with money. For example, a "Master Teacher" designation, in addition to carrying a higher salary, might receive greater autonomy, the ability to serve on state committees, the ability to write and teach new courses and so forth. If we are just talking about merit pay as a small incremental for achieving good test scores in a given year than no, I don't think you accomplish much of anything. We need to look hard at the teaching profession and start treating teachers as the professionals that they are. </strong><br />
<br />
<br />
5. Could merit pay create hostile competition between teachers? <br />
<br />
<strong>Sure, but that's no different than what some teachers feel today. If you are a great teacher working 70 hours a week doing everything possible for your students, and you are making half as much as the teacher next door who does the bare minimum, that might also foster negative feelings. It is human nature. As long as compensation is administered fairly and always with an eye towards advancing the goals of the organization, strategic compensation would yield better results than the status quo. </strong><br />
<br />
6. Some opponents of merit pay say that teachers don t become teachers for the money. Does this mean incentives for higher performance do not work? <br />
<br />
<strong>Choice of career is a function of a large number of variables. I didn't become a software developer for the money either, I did it because I enjoyed working with computers and I had a passion to learn everything about them. Did that mean that as my career advanced, I didn't take advantage of opportunities to increase my pay? Of course not. The notion that teaching is the only profession whose practitioners are never motivated by money is silly. </strong><strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong>There are volumes of research on the question of whether incentives for higher performance work and I assume as part of your study, you will cite work on either side of the argument. I think you are asking the wrong question. What you need to ask yourself is whether a system of strategic compensation works better than the existing system. With the existing system, there is no correlation between quality and pay. Don't take my word for it - try to find such a study. Research shows that we are pulling teachers from the bottom 33% of college classes. That would seem to indicate that we are not paying enough to attract the best possible candidates to the profession, or, that the best candidates for the profession have many options for career choice and the thought of going through 35 years of a career with no opportunity for advancement is not appealing. Either way, we can do better. One thing is for certain. With the existing system, we are surely limiting the pool of possible teachers to those who are NOT motivated by money and excluding those who are, and that can't be healthy for the profession. </strong><br />
<br />
<br />
7. Private schools are often cited as successful examples of merit pay. Could this success be translated to public schools?<br />
<br />
<strong>I don't agree with the premise of the question, that private schools are often cited as successful examples of merit pay. There are many merit pay experiments occurring in both public and private schools, however, I am aware of only a few that use strategic compensation to attract and retain teachers. For example, 60 minutes did a report earlier this year on a public school in Manhattan that paid all of their teachers $125,000/year. They wanted to hire the absolute best. This would not be merit pay, this would be strategic compensation. This was the report: </strong><br />
<strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/10/60minutes/main20041733.shtml">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/10/60minutes/main20041733.shtml</a></strong><br />
<br />
8. Would merit pay distort the goals of teachers for better or for worse?<br />
<br />
<strong>Sure, but no more so that the incentives and disincentives built into the current system. For example, to pass a state standard might require 75% of the kids to achieve a score of 60 on an achievement test. A teacher might spend more time with kids bordering on 60 to pull them over the top and spend less time on kids at the top or kids that have no chance to pass the test. That's why you have to be really careful when designing the goals. If I were to ask you what the goal of the Worthington School District should be, how would you answer? It is not an easy question because there would be many goals - selecting only one would be quite a challenge. Is it to produce National Merit Scholars? What about kids at the bottom? Is it to see that everyone graduates? How does that serve kids that are most gifted? See what I mean? </strong><strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong>Bottom line is that merit pay, as an adjunct to strategic compensation can certainly further the goals of the organization but the organization itself needs to understand those goals first. If the organization understands what it is trying to accomplish, formulating a merit pay scheme to move everyone in that direction is possible. </strong><br />
<br />
9. Obviously there are a lot of compromises that must be made to create an effective system. Please describe what you view to be the best method for determining teacher salaries. <br />
<br />
<strong>I'd need a bit more time to answer this one, but you get a sense of the alternatives from my earlier answers. Market forces must be allowed to prevail. We cannot not continue to treat teachers, one of the most important professions, the same as assembly line workers at GM. We need to use strategic compensation to attract and retain people in the profession. There is one question you should have asked that you did not. If the market says that to attract quality people, we need to pay more, can we afford to do so. My answer is yes, because if we can fix public education, I believe that a significant percentage of money currently being spent on social services would no longer be required. We are going to invest money anyway, either in education or in social services - I think society is best served by investing in education at the front end. </strong>Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-25462889631836776462011-10-20T11:10:00.000-04:002011-10-20T11:10:28.396-04:00Wireless Communication Device Policy.A few weeks ago, I asked <a href="http://www.worthington.k12.oh.us/superintendents_message.php">Superintendent Tucker</a> to look into the issue of whether our <a href="http://www.worthington.k12.oh.us/uploads/2/File/documents/worthington-j.pdf">board policy</a> (Page 73) that disallows the use of Wireless Communication Devices during the school day should be looked at. A WCD could be anything from an internet enable cellphone to an IPAD or other tablet device to a small netbook. I made the request because it makes no sense for kids to have to power down when they enter our buildings. We've spent a lot of money enabling WIFI in the buildings so perhaps it is time to maximize that investment. <br />
<br />
As with most policies, there are pros and cons. The biggest objection is that the WCD will be misused, taking inappropriate photographs, texting (or worse) with friends, spending too much time on Facebook and perhaps even reading board member blog posts. <br />
<br />
My response is that we should punish the behavior if inappropriate, but not ban the tool. Within a few years, WCD will be ubiquitous, spanning all age groups and income levels. It is the nature of technology. Furthermore, the world that our kids inherit will be filled with this kind of technology - isn't it best to learn how to use it in a controlled environment. <br />
<br />
Superintendent Tucker commissioned a task force to look at more permissive policies employed by other school districts around the country. Several look promising. The consensus is that Worthington's policy, assuming we change it at all, should look something like <a href="http://www.scps.k12.fl.us/Portals/53/assets/pdf/PolicyFiles/AUP/AUP%20Student%20Policy%206.175.pdf">this</a>. <br />
<br />
I see great value to the use of WCD in educational settings but I also understand that there are risks. There is also an equity issue as our district cannot afford to provide devices to all students, but many students have them already. We will simply not require them to be turned off when they enter our buildings. Over time, as the technology matures, the equity issue will disappear. <br />
<br />
As always, our entire board values constituent input and any new policy will go through the normal process of a first reading at a board meeting (probably in December) and a vote in January. In the meantime, please feel free to share any thoughts on this topic on the blog or by contacting me directly.Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-78682474601447879712011-09-07T13:39:00.000-04:002011-09-07T13:39:34.853-04:00Interest Factoids on Value-AddLast night, I attended a meeting of the <a href="http://www.worthington.k12.oh.us/schools/pta.php?school=28">Colonial Hills PTA</a> where the subject of "Value-Add" came up. Value-Add is a metric that measures student growth - whether the student, grade, school or district achieved a years worth of academic growth for a years worth of time. Being the left brain type that I am, I wanted to understand in detail the algorithm that was used to determine this. Much to my surprise, the algorithm is not published and is not available, not even as a public record. I've been told that the algorithm is enormously complex and that disclosing it would not demystify it. In any event, I came across an interesting article on the efforts by the State of Ohio to smooth out the rough spots on the value-add calculation and make it a more reliable indicator. As you go through the article, make sure you click on the <a href="http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2008/200808_ohiovalueaddedprimer/Ohio_Value_Added_Primer_FINAL_small.pdf">value-add primer</a> and on <a href="http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/gadfly/oh/2010/OH_Gadfly_2-10-10.html#B1">Doug Clay's article</a> on the yo-yo effect. The article is here: <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.educationgadfly.net/flypaper/2011/08/from-ski-slope-to-a-bell-curve-ohio%e2%80%99s-evolving-value-added-measure/">http://www.educationgadfly.net/flypaper/2011/08/from-ski-slope-to-a-bell-curve-ohio%e2%80%99s-evolving-value-added-measure/</a>Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-89073688037289243372011-08-31T10:56:00.000-04:002011-08-31T10:56:25.410-04:00Superintendent Tucker on the RadioWorthington's new Superintendent, Dr. Thomas Tucker, participated in a discussion about the state report card on Ann Fisher's program "All Sides" on WOSU radio. Ann Fisher pressed Dr. Tucker about the difference between "Excellent" and "Excellent with Distinction". Dr. Tucker correctly points out that other districts in Central Ohio received the "Excellent with Distinction" rating with worse scores than Worthington but because they had more "growth", they received a higher grade. <br />
<br />
Let's use a football analogy as we celebrate the start of the football season. Let's say that Mark Sanchez throws 30 touchdown passes for the Jets this year and receives an "A". Now let's say that Tom Brady throws 15 touchdown passes for the Patriots this year and also receives an "A" because of the <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/03/20/schools-pass-rates-on-state-tests-arent-full-story.html">low standards</a> for getting an "A" that the NFL has. Fast forward to next season where Sanchez throws 31 passes and again gets his "A" but Brady improves to 22 passes and earns an A+ (excellent with distinction) because he "grew" more than Sanchez even though Sanchez clearly had the better stats. <br />
<br />
You can catch Dr. Tucker's comments on the <a href="http://beta.wosu.org/allsides/rating-our-schools-school-report-cards/">WOSU podcast</a> starting at around the 27 minute mark. Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-88027485901079860332011-08-23T15:24:00.000-04:002011-08-23T15:24:54.492-04:00Convocation 2011Convocation in Worthington is part giant-staff-meeting and part pep-rally. The day before school officially starts, teachers and staff members are welcomed back and a short program is provided featuring addresses by the Superintendent, <a href="http://www.mschare.com/speeches/convocation2011.pdf">Board President</a>, WEA President and WESP President. This year, convocation was tinged with sadness at the retirement of Dr. Melissa Conrath and excitement as we welcomed Dr. Tucker into the district. Before the speeches this year, the legendary theatre teacher at TWHS, Bronwynn Hopton, in conjunction with teachers at Evening Street produced a play called "The Wizard of Worthington". It was too good not to share. It is in two parts and you can access them here: <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BcvsLC4X7s">The Wizard of Worthington Part 1</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eNnMb68Znk">The Wizard of Worthington Part 2</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-25922280663441426812011-05-20T10:54:00.000-04:002011-05-20T10:54:35.818-04:00Superintendent Search Update.On Tuesday and Wednesday nights, our superintendent candidates met with the Board, a group consisting of Worthington School District Staff members and a separate group consisting of parents, community leaders, community volunteers and a student representative. I want to take a moment to extend a note of thanks to all of these people who took time out of their schedules in this busy time of year to put in two very full nights with our Superintendent candidates. <br />
<br />
<br />
The Board of Education intends to proceed in a very deliberate fashion. Last night, the Board met in Executive Session for approximately 3 hours and started going over the volume of information we have collected on all four candidates, including the evaluations from community and staff. There is a lot of material provided by the candidates in their applications and a lot of research into the history, background and accomplishments of each of these educational leaders and the Board is doing its due diligence to go over all of it. <br />
<br />
The Board will again come together to continue our discussion after our regular board meeting on May 23 and we have scheduled another executive session on May 26 where we hope to conclude this process. No decision will be announced prior to May 26. I thank the Worthington community for all of their emails and phone calls (keep them coming) and also for their patience. <br />
<br />
If you'd like to email or contact the Board or any of its individual members, you can get our phone numbers and email addresses here:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.worthington.k12.oh.us/school_board.php?PHPSESSID=20e291ca03dd0846ddb4fcadc66c13a3">http://www.worthington.k12.oh.us/school_board.php?PHPSESSID=20e291ca03dd0846ddb4fcadc66c13a3</a>Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-7576730302082479332011-05-13T19:50:00.000-04:002011-05-13T19:50:39.714-04:00Superintendent Search - Finalists AnnouncedThe Worthington Board of Education met in executive session on May 9 and selected four candidates to advance to our final round. Clicking on the candidates name will direct you to their application which would include biographical information as well as personal statements of why they are interested in the job. The candidates are: <br />
<br />
1) <a href="http://www.mschare.com/uploads/superintendentcandidates/bowers.pdf">Dr. Trent Bowers</a> - Assistant Superintendent Intern at Worthington City Schools. <br />
<br />
2) <a href="http://www.mschare.com/uploads/superintendentcandidates/evans.pdf">Dr. Michele Evans</a> - Superintendent, Canton City Schools. <br />
<br />
3) <a href="http://www.mschare.com/uploads/superintendentcandidates/tucker.pdf">Dr. Thomas Tucker</a> - Superintendent, Licking Heights Local Schools. <br />
<br />
4) <a href="http://www.mschare.com/uploads/superintendentcandidates/trego.pdf">Mr. Michael Trego</a> - Deputy Superintendent, Dublin City Schools. <br />
<br />
These four candidates will meet with the Board, a representative group of staff members and a representative group of community members on May 17 and May 18. Based on the results from those interviews, the board may name our next Superintendent at our May 23 meeting, or, if the decision is close between two candidates, we may hold a forum for the public at large to weigh in.Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5079678341688726128.post-60662182673298497062011-04-26T12:24:00.001-04:002011-04-26T12:26:00.128-04:00Superintendent Search UpdateThe Worthington Board of Education met in executive session last night to finalize our selection of the Superintendent candidates that we will invite to first round interviews. It was a difficult evening because there were so many qualified candidates. Clicking on the candidates name will direct you to their application which would include biographical information as well as personal statements of why they are interested in the job. The board looks forward to interviewing: <br />
<br />
1) <a href="http://www.mschare.com/uploads/superintendentcandidates/bowers.pdf">Dr. Trent Bowers</a><br />
<br />
2) <a href="http://www.mschare.com/uploads/superintendentcandidates/evans.pdf">Dr. Michele Evans</a><br />
<br />
3) <a href="http://www.mschare.com/uploads/superintendentcandidates/hackett.pdf">Joyce L. Hackett</a><br />
<br />
4) <a href="http://www.mschare.com/uploads/superintendentcandidates/mccann.pdf">Dr. Blane McCann </a><br />
<br />
5) <a href="http://www.mschare.com/uploads/superintendentcandidates/nichols.pdf">Dr. Todd Nichols</a><br />
<br />
6) <a href="http://www.mschare.com/uploads/superintendentcandidates/wendell.pdf">Dr. Lisa Wendell </a><br />
<br />
The Board will interview these candidates on May 2, 3 and 5. On May 5, the board will select candidates to move into second round interviews and also to meet with community representatives. <br />
<br />
In addition to these 6 candidates, the search consultants are continuing their efforts to directly recruit candidates. Those candidates, if they choose to apply, will participate in second round interviews with the Board and will also meet with the community representatives later in the month.Marc Scharehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16379880190982837398noreply@blogger.com9