Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Newsday Doesn't Get it Complete, or Right, Again

[originally transmitted on Elwood Community Network on 9/12]

Last week there was a story in Newsday about the Elwood School District and its need to reduce its Kindergarten program from Full-Day to Half-Day due to fiscal constraints caused primarily by massive reductions in State aid.

Since the author of that article had obviously not done very much research, and had elected to simply talk to the first three people she found outside Harley willing to comment and made no more of an effort to seek a District or BOE comment than a single phone call, I thought it appropriate to set the record straight by communicating directly with the Newsday reporter.

The full text of my communication is pasted below.

Jerry Hannon

......................................

[begin pasted text]

As a long-time member of both the Audit Committee as well as the Citizens Finance/Budget Advisory Committee of the Elwood School District, and as a former President of the Elwood PTA Council, I appreciate media coverage of our small but very substantive school district.

Unfortunately, the perspective you received from three district residents did not provide a proper understanding of what proved to be a very complex issue.

You did make clear that you tried to get a comment from the district Superintendent, and were unable to do so before your deadline, but I would suggest that in the future you also try to reach either the President of the Board of Education, Joe Fusaro, or the Vice President, Dan Ciccone; their respective E-mail addresses are: <<fusaroj631@aol.com>>, and <<dtciccone@optonline.net>>.

From my own personal perspective, I would note the following:

(1) The budget setting process for the 2011/12 school year was the most challenging during my eleven years in this school district. Most notably, the massive cuts in aid by NY State, combined with the continuing service mandates imposed by the State, as well as the escalation of such cost factors as pension contributions mandated by the State, and exacerbated by ongoing cost structure constraints imposed by labor contracts agreed to by school districts during better economic times, forced this district -- and others -- to make major cuts.

(2) This is a K through 12 district, and not a K through 2 district -- nor, for an even worse perspective, a K-alone district. Nobody likes to see cuts affecting their child, and that is understandable, but 2011/12 was definitely a time for Shared Sacrifice, and it would be irrational to imagine that Kindergarten could not also be affected by budget cuts, when students in so many other grades, as well as taxpayers, had to make sacrifices as well.

(3) Knowing that the economic necessity of reducing from our Full-Time Kindergarten program, which was instituted only two years ago in Elwood when the State's aid contributions permitted it, the Board of Education came up with a very creative plan to enhance what would become the Kindergarten Half-Day Program with additional learning experiences. That was a plan whose details would be best addressed by the Board, but it is partially addressed in the pasted messages below; what I can tell you is that it would have required the consent of the local teachers union, Elwood Teachers Alliance, and I do note with considerable dismay that neither of the two residents which expressed to you their concern about the program cuts spoke about this plan, and about why it was never implemented. Perhaps one or both were unaware of the refusal by the union to cooperate, or perhaps one or both choose to avoid confronting the obdurate union officials about why they would not place the children in Kindergarten ahead of their own parochial self-interest.

Economic challenges are now a reality for school districts, and it does not appear that the budget-setting process for the 2012/13 school year will be any better, and it may well continue for years into the future.

Until the State increases aid meaningfully, and until the State reduces mandate costs, and until the few remaining unions -- largely teachers unions on Long Island -- which have not yet indicated a willingness to join in sharing the sacrifices, of students and taxpayers, districts like Elwood will be faced with burdensome challenges that will require Shared Sacrifice across the thirteen grade levels of each district.

Kindergarten can not be made exempt from such Shared Sacrifice, yet teachers unions, such as Elwood's, could help to reduce the level of sacrifice required by the students if they focused upon the totality of education rather than upon their own economic interests.

I invite you to consider the community commentaries -- pasted below -- which I transmitted to two E-mail distribution lists on July 3rd, and later posted on the blog Elwood Illuminations <<
http://elwoodilluminations.blogspot.com>> where you will also find other school district and education-related commentaries.

You will also find my abbreviated bio on the home page of Elwood Illuminations.

While I realize it is not always possible to completely research a story, you should have the benefit of a comprehensive perspective on this and other issues related to the Elwood School District.

Regards, Jerry Hannon

Agreed, Good Idea, But Bad Design By NY State

[originally transmitted on Elwood Community Network on 10/10]

At Elwood's BOE Work Session on Oct 6th, we finally learned some specifics about what the State has done in implementing the teacher performance appraisal process. Like many things in life, specifics trump generalities any day of the week.

Thanks to some candid descriptions by the Superintendent of Schools, and some useful dialogue among trustees as well as some residents, we now know what NY State has done, and we also now know that what the State has done seems to have been done "more to us rather than for us."

There was general agreement during this discussion that education in New York would benefit from an enhanced teacher performance appraisal process, but the State seems to have created not only a new unfunded mandate in creating their version, but they also seemed to have created a highly flawed system which could create unintended consequences as well as increase costs dramatically.

First of all, the data which would be required to be gathered, managed, and submitted to the State by each school district, in addition to what is presently submitted, would require a dedication of district resources that will not be paid for by the State.

Second, the use of State student assessment data as 20% of the performance appraisal calculation will place, perhaps in unintended ways, an increased burden upon students themselves, whose scores on such specific tests will now be part of a process which could determine which teachers will subsequently be subject to dismissal if that teacher's overall score is
below a certain level for a specified period of time.

Third, the State has set itself up, and in so doing has set school districts up, for what would seem to be a perpetuated challenge process whereby an unhappy teacher, and/or union representatives, could delay any appropriate significant action by a school district for years longer (and it seems beyond definition at this point) than the theoretical appraisal process would allow. As the old line goes, justice delayed is justice denied.

Fourth, the State's new process would even seem to make it more difficult for school districts to determine the suitability of one of the very, very few areas of a school district's current ability to manage quality control among its teaching staff, namely, with probationary teachers. Right now a district has discretion with this class of new hires, but it seems that the new State structure could even make a district subject to delaying tactics and possibly challenges from new hires.

The reaction of trustees and residents alike indicated that what the State has designed is the wrong thing for us and other districts.

As BOE Vice President Dan Ciccone put it, "Do we need accountability, absolutely. Do we need appraisals, absolutely. But this is not what we need."

One resident agreed and noted that this State design would put too much burden on the students, as well as the staff managing all of the data.

Another resident noted that many employers, including his company, use a 360 degree review. As background, that is one which basically gathers reviews of one staff member by (a) their customers (in this case it would be parents), and (b) by their peers (in this case it would be other teachers), and (c) by their superiors (in this case it would be the building principal and central office administrators).

Yet another resident indicated that everyone is being held accountable at their own jobs, but that school districts definitely need to get rid of unfunded mandates.

To all of the above, I would say "Amen."

For me, Albany long ago became a four letter word, but it seems to be getting worse rather than better.

As additional background for this issue, as well as to provide a review of the foundation-setting which Elwood had for this evolving State action, I have reprinted an excerpt from my community commentary, titled "Important Presentation on Staff Performance Evaluation Process," which was published on 12/10/10:

"...there were some significant “compromises” by the State Education Department as a result of pressure from the New York State United Teachers, which is the 600,000 member union in NY State....Dr. Friedman reminded everyone that “the devil is in the details,” and that these changes need a great deal of clarification. He also reminded us that when we consider measurements of various aspects of performance that can and should be used to determine staff value, that “not everything that can be counted, counts, and not everything that counts, can be counted.”

Anyone who would like a copy of that commentary, with its attached early-stages analysis done in November of 2010 by Ron Friedman, should simply send me an E-mail with that request.