A few weeks back, I attended a meeting of the Worthington Area Democratic Club (WADC) where the featured speaker was Dr. Bill Phillis. Dr. Phillis works today to eliminate charter schools 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 invoicing the state 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.
Worthington has passed several resolutions in my time on the Board. A few months back, we passed a resolution calling for a line-item veto override of the Governor's veto on TPP reimbursement funding. We also passed a resolution calling for a change for how the state implements charter school funding, 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 resolution in opposition to HB597, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Governor vetoes Worthington's TPP reimbursement.
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.
I have a few thoughts to share. First, the money isn't actually going to poorer districts, it's staying in the state treasury unless appropriated somewhere else.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Finally, I'd be remiss to once again not thank State Rep Mike Duffey 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.
Friday, February 21, 2014
The 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:
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/02/21/tallying-calamity-days-cost-isnt-easy.html
The line that got me was this one:
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.
“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.
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?
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.
The legislation (HB416) passed by the Ohio House allows that for calamity days 8 and 9, teachers must report for work for training purposes. If you listen to the debate 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?
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. In other words, it should be the result that matters. 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?
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. Virtually every teacher union contract in the state 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 excerpt or this excerpt 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.
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.
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.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/02/21/tallying-calamity-days-cost-isnt-easy.html
The line that got me was this one:
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.
“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.
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?
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.
The legislation (HB416) passed by the Ohio House allows that for calamity days 8 and 9, teachers must report for work for training purposes. If you listen to the debate 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?
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. In other words, it should be the result that matters. 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?
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. Virtually every teacher union contract in the state 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 excerpt or this excerpt 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.
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.
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.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Feeling 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
 |
| Worthington State Funding 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 |
 |
| Worthington State Funding 2013-2014 and 2014-2015
So the numbers are as follows:
Previous Budget: Total Foundation Funding before deductions: $13,818,020
Total Foundation Funding after deductions: $10,891,501
New State Budget Total Foundation Funding before deductions: $14,681,693
New State Budget Total Foundation Funding after deductions: $11,936,511
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.
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.
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.
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 2018 while also having sufficient funds for programmatic expansion such as the reintroduction of a foreign language program in the elementary grades.
|
Friday, September 20, 2013
2018
In November of 2012, Worthington City School
district residents passed an incremental
operating levy. Our district had made a case that reductions at the state level, particularly in regard to tangible personal property tax reimbursements, were going to result in a significant funding drop 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 Mike Duffey
had arranged a conference call between me and the chairman of the Ohio House
Budget Committee, and Chairman Amstutz
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 assumptions 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.
Fast forward a year. The levy has passed and, in the fullness of time, we now know how our assumptions panned out.
- 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.
- 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.
- We are anticipating around $400K/year in casino money. That money was not yet forecasted when we determined the levy amount.
- 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%.
Now, it is time to do some long term financial planning. When will the Worthington School District have to run another levy.
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) recommends 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.
So, with all the good financial news, let's get to work calculating when that next levy might be required. 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 forecast that was passed in May of 2013. 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.
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 this.
The resulting forecast has a chart showing the following ending cash balances.
 |
| Worthington School District *Unofficial* 7 year projection with TPP reimbursements |
The blue line represents the projected end-of-year cash balances assuming the state keeps its hands off of our TPP reimbursement revenue and that we keep expenses growing at a modest rate of about 3.2% after 2017, or roughly 150% of the current inflation rate.
So where am I going with this?
Last year, when voting to put the levy on the
ballot, I proposed 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.
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. 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, and extend the length of this levy.
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. 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, and extend the length of this levy.
So how do we make that happen? 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.
The primary vehicle the Board Of Education has to hold administration accountable for results is through the Ohio Superintendent Evaluation System. OSES provides for a set of goals for the Superintendent to accomplish each year. At the August 26, 2013 BOE meeting, I proposed 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.
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.
I also want to emphasize the point that this goal does not mean we won't have money for new initiatives. 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.
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.
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.
The primary vehicle the Board Of Education has to hold administration accountable for results is through the Ohio Superintendent Evaluation System. OSES provides for a set of goals for the Superintendent to accomplish each year. At the August 26, 2013 BOE meeting, I proposed 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.
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.
I also want to emphasize the point that this goal does not mean we won't have money for new initiatives. 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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Conflict of Interest.
One of the rituals for School Board Candidates in Worthington is the screening/interview process for potential endorsement by the Worthington Education Association, also known as our local teacher's union. The endorsement generally comes with a campaign donation.
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.
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.
Mark -
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.
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.
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.
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.
Best wishes,
Marc Schare
Worthington Board of Education.
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 conflict of interest. The union has every right to endorse whoever they want - the conflict of interest is strictly on the candidate.
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.
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Ohio Superintendent Evaluation System
The Ohio Superintendent Evaluation System 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.
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 here 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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
This year, caution is very much called for because of changes occurring at the state level. Worthington will be implementing the Common Core state standards and the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System. That may not leave a lot of administrative time and energy for local initiatives.
The Worthington Board of Education will meet in a work session on Saturday, August 10 at 1pm 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 contact me 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.
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 here 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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
This year, caution is very much called for because of changes occurring at the state level. Worthington will be implementing the Common Core state standards and the Ohio Teacher Evaluation System. That may not leave a lot of administrative time and energy for local initiatives.
The Worthington Board of Education will meet in a work session on Saturday, August 10 at 1pm 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 contact me 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)