[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.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Monday, September 5, 2011
Newsday Letters - One Insightful, One Angry
[originally transmitted on 9/2 to Elwood Community Network]
In today's Newsday, on page A35, there are two letters written in response to an Op-Ed published on Aug 27th which was authored by an obviously dedicated Lynbrook teacher, regarding how he spent his summer vacation.
If you would like to read Mike Imondi's original Op-Ed, you can access it on the Newsday website:
http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/expressway-a-teacher-s-lazy-summer-1.3124601
Additionally, if you would like to read the somewhat angry response by Peter Haynes of Bayport, which has many elements of truth to consider, you may read that on a different Newsday web page:
http://www.newsday.com/opinion/letters/letters-teachers-and-their-time-off-1.3138796
But, I feel that the following letter (also found on the immediately-above web page citation), from a former member of the BOE of Port Washington, provides a more comprehensive perspective which challenges not only the absurd notion of some people that "all teachers are lazy whiners", but also the absurd notion that "all teachers are equal, and all teachers try really hard, and all teachers deserve the same compensation."
That latter attitude merely depresses the prospects for the very best teachers while protecting all but the very worst teachers, as if each deserves nothing more, or nothing less, than the others.
Jerry Hannon
.............................................................................................
Letters: Teachers and their time off
Published: September 1, 2011 7:37 PM
The Expressway essay by teacher Mike Imondi ["A teacher's 'lazy' summer," Aug. 27] rankled me. It's not that I haven't seen dedicated public schoolteachers like his self-description. I have. We had three daughters go through the public school system with good results and many dedicated teachers.
One problem is that there aren't more such teachers, especially for the middle to struggling students. In my district, teacher absenteeism is very high (7 percent). High absenteeism adds needless expense and hurts students' education. Absenteeism is a better measure of dedication than the amusing testimony of a hardworking English teacher.
English and social studies teachers may take more work home than other teachers, but those who don't take work home (or lack dedication) are paid the same as those who do.
A related problem is that the system does not support responsible teacher behavior. Unions demand short hours. That hurts students and makes the system unaffordable. Most successful education reforms include more contact time between teachers and students, more days and more hours per day. It's especially important for students with fewer resources at home to have more time in a school's constructive environment.
I prize the instances when I hear from teachers who criticize the system to stand up for the students, but they are rare because both administrators and unions slam courageous whistle-blowers. If Imondi's piece were a call to responsibility for our less professional teachers, union leaders and administrators, it would have been far more valuable. Students do not need another self-serving defense of the status quo.
Joseph Mirzoeff, Port Washington
[Newsday] Editor's note: The writer was a member of the Port Washington Board of Education from 1995 to 1998.
In today's Newsday, on page A35, there are two letters written in response to an Op-Ed published on Aug 27th which was authored by an obviously dedicated Lynbrook teacher, regarding how he spent his summer vacation.
If you would like to read Mike Imondi's original Op-Ed, you can access it on the Newsday website:
http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/expressway-a-teacher-s-lazy-summer-1.3124601
Additionally, if you would like to read the somewhat angry response by Peter Haynes of Bayport, which has many elements of truth to consider, you may read that on a different Newsday web page:
http://www.newsday.com/opinion/letters/letters-teachers-and-their-time-off-1.3138796
But, I feel that the following letter (also found on the immediately-above web page citation), from a former member of the BOE of Port Washington, provides a more comprehensive perspective which challenges not only the absurd notion of some people that "all teachers are lazy whiners", but also the absurd notion that "all teachers are equal, and all teachers try really hard, and all teachers deserve the same compensation."
That latter attitude merely depresses the prospects for the very best teachers while protecting all but the very worst teachers, as if each deserves nothing more, or nothing less, than the others.
Jerry Hannon
.............................................................................................
Letters: Teachers and their time off
Published: September 1, 2011 7:37 PM
The Expressway essay by teacher Mike Imondi ["A teacher's 'lazy' summer," Aug. 27] rankled me. It's not that I haven't seen dedicated public schoolteachers like his self-description. I have. We had three daughters go through the public school system with good results and many dedicated teachers.
One problem is that there aren't more such teachers, especially for the middle to struggling students. In my district, teacher absenteeism is very high (7 percent). High absenteeism adds needless expense and hurts students' education. Absenteeism is a better measure of dedication than the amusing testimony of a hardworking English teacher.
English and social studies teachers may take more work home than other teachers, but those who don't take work home (or lack dedication) are paid the same as those who do.
A related problem is that the system does not support responsible teacher behavior. Unions demand short hours. That hurts students and makes the system unaffordable. Most successful education reforms include more contact time between teachers and students, more days and more hours per day. It's especially important for students with fewer resources at home to have more time in a school's constructive environment.
I prize the instances when I hear from teachers who criticize the system to stand up for the students, but they are rare because both administrators and unions slam courageous whistle-blowers. If Imondi's piece were a call to responsibility for our less professional teachers, union leaders and administrators, it would have been far more valuable. Students do not need another self-serving defense of the status quo.
Joseph Mirzoeff, Port Washington
[Newsday] Editor's note: The writer was a member of the Port Washington Board of Education from 1995 to 1998.
Another Corporate Executive Proclaims "Enough, Already"
[originally transmitted on 9/2 to Elwood Community Network]
The logjam in Congress, which seems focused more upon the interests of a political party rather than the American people, has caused another corporate CEO to shout "Enough, Already."
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz wrote the following, which was also E-mailed to all those with a Starbucks account:
.........................................................
{Begin Text}
September 2011
Dear Starbucks Friend and Fellow Citizen:
I love our country. And I am a beneficiary of the promise of America. But today, I am very concerned that at times I do not recognize the America that I love.
Like so many of you, I am deeply disappointed by the pervasive failure of leadership in Washington. And also like you, I am frustrated by our political leaders' steadfast refusal to recognize that, for every day they perpetuate partisan conflict and put ideology over country, America and Americans suffer from the combined effects of paralysis and uncertainty. Americans can't find jobs. Small businesses can't get credit. And the fracturing of consumer confidence continues.
We are better than this.
Three weeks ago, I asked fellow business leaders to join me in urging the President and the Congress to put an end to partisan gridlock and, in its place, to set in motion an upward spiral of confidence. More than 100 business leaders representing American companies - large and small - joined me in signing a two-part pledge:
First, to withhold political campaign contributions until a transparent, comprehensive, bipartisan debt-and-deficit package is reached that honestly, and fairly, sets America on a path to long-term financial health and security. Second, to do all we can to break the cycle of economic uncertainty that grips our country by committing to accelerate investment in jobs and hiring.
In the weeks since then, I have been overwhelmed by the heartfelt stories of Americans from across the country, sharing their anguish over losing hope in the strongest and most galvanizing force of all - the American Dream. Some feel they have no voice. Others feel they no longer matter. And many feel they have been left behind.
We cannot let this stand.
Please join other concerned Americans and me on a national call-in conversation on Tuesday September 6th hosted by "No Labels," a nonpartisan organization dedicated to fostering cooperative and more effective government. To learn more about the forum and the pledges, visit www.upwardspiral2011.org
America is at a fragile and critical moment in its history. We must restore hope in the American Dream. We must celebrate all that America stands for around the world. And while our Founding Fathers recognized the constructive value of political debate, we must send the message to today's elected officials in a civil, respectful voice they hear and understand, that the time to put citizenship ahead of partisanship is now.
Yours is the voice that can help ignite the contagious upward spiral of confidence that our country desperately needs.
With great respect,
chief executive officer, Starbucks Coffee Company
{End Text}
.................................................................
I feel that Mr. Schultz will strike a responsive cord with most citizens of this country, whether Republican or Democrat or independent.
Those who speak only from the right wing, and those who speak only from the left wing, have a lot to answer for already.
The best traditions of this country have come from the broad center, but Republican moderates and Democratic moderates are increasingly berated by the extremist wings of their own parties and the result is a total logjam which has made it impossible for the basically centrist views of the President to progress and succeed.
Yes, those who have hated Barak Obama from the beginning will never accede to a moderate approach, just as those who have wanted a left wing President -- and are furious at the more moderate approach of Mr. Obama -- will never accept his basically centrist views. But, whatever your own views of his presidency, and there is much to be disappointed in just as there is much to applaud, you surely cannot countenance the obstructionism in Congress which has further deteriorated the economy as well as prevented our historical approach as Americans of putting Country before Party.
Mr. Schultz speaks wisdom for those whose eyes and ears and minds are actually open.
Jerry Hannon
The logjam in Congress, which seems focused more upon the interests of a political party rather than the American people, has caused another corporate CEO to shout "Enough, Already."
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz wrote the following, which was also E-mailed to all those with a Starbucks account:
.........................................................
{Begin Text}
September 2011
Dear Starbucks Friend and Fellow Citizen:
I love our country. And I am a beneficiary of the promise of America. But today, I am very concerned that at times I do not recognize the America that I love.
Like so many of you, I am deeply disappointed by the pervasive failure of leadership in Washington. And also like you, I am frustrated by our political leaders' steadfast refusal to recognize that, for every day they perpetuate partisan conflict and put ideology over country, America and Americans suffer from the combined effects of paralysis and uncertainty. Americans can't find jobs. Small businesses can't get credit. And the fracturing of consumer confidence continues.
We are better than this.
Three weeks ago, I asked fellow business leaders to join me in urging the President and the Congress to put an end to partisan gridlock and, in its place, to set in motion an upward spiral of confidence. More than 100 business leaders representing American companies - large and small - joined me in signing a two-part pledge:
First, to withhold political campaign contributions until a transparent, comprehensive, bipartisan debt-and-deficit package is reached that honestly, and fairly, sets America on a path to long-term financial health and security. Second, to do all we can to break the cycle of economic uncertainty that grips our country by committing to accelerate investment in jobs and hiring.
In the weeks since then, I have been overwhelmed by the heartfelt stories of Americans from across the country, sharing their anguish over losing hope in the strongest and most galvanizing force of all - the American Dream. Some feel they have no voice. Others feel they no longer matter. And many feel they have been left behind.
We cannot let this stand.
Please join other concerned Americans and me on a national call-in conversation on Tuesday September 6th hosted by "No Labels," a nonpartisan organization dedicated to fostering cooperative and more effective government. To learn more about the forum and the pledges, visit www.upwardspiral2011.org
America is at a fragile and critical moment in its history. We must restore hope in the American Dream. We must celebrate all that America stands for around the world. And while our Founding Fathers recognized the constructive value of political debate, we must send the message to today's elected officials in a civil, respectful voice they hear and understand, that the time to put citizenship ahead of partisanship is now.
Yours is the voice that can help ignite the contagious upward spiral of confidence that our country desperately needs.
With great respect,
chief executive officer, Starbucks Coffee Company
{End Text}
.................................................................
I feel that Mr. Schultz will strike a responsive cord with most citizens of this country, whether Republican or Democrat or independent.
Those who speak only from the right wing, and those who speak only from the left wing, have a lot to answer for already.
The best traditions of this country have come from the broad center, but Republican moderates and Democratic moderates are increasingly berated by the extremist wings of their own parties and the result is a total logjam which has made it impossible for the basically centrist views of the President to progress and succeed.
Yes, those who have hated Barak Obama from the beginning will never accede to a moderate approach, just as those who have wanted a left wing President -- and are furious at the more moderate approach of Mr. Obama -- will never accept his basically centrist views. But, whatever your own views of his presidency, and there is much to be disappointed in just as there is much to applaud, you surely cannot countenance the obstructionism in Congress which has further deteriorated the economy as well as prevented our historical approach as Americans of putting Country before Party.
Mr. Schultz speaks wisdom for those whose eyes and ears and minds are actually open.
Jerry Hannon
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Washington Post's "Challenge Index" - What Does It Really Mean?
The Washington Post has published an update to their annual “Challenge Index”, which they describe as a measure of a high school’s willingness to challenge its students.
In the preamble to their results, the Post described their methodology as follows: “The formula is simple: Divide the number of Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate or other college-level tests a school gave in 2010 by the number of graduating seniors. While not a measure of the overall quality of the school, the rating can reveal the level of a high school’s commitment to preparing average students for college.”
They went on to describe two additional measures which the Post reveals in their summary of statistics for the high schools covered by their survey: “E & E is the percent of all seniors who had at least one passing grade on an AP or IB exam. Subs lunch is the percent of all students designated low income.” It appears that neither of these two categories of information are used in their Challenge Index calculations, so you may simply think of them as informational data points.
This is a survey which was originally produced annually by Newsweek magazine, which was sold by the Washington Post in 2010, with the Post obviously retaining this survey which seems to generate interest among some parents. To my mind, an index which is determined by a number of tests taken, without any regard for the actual grades obtained by the students taking such tests, is of very little value indeed.
Nevertheless, it may be a good indicator that a particular high school might be taking a much-too-exclusive attitude about who may take such tests, or even an attitude that it fails to sufficiently challenge the students in that high school.
However, if someone were to focus solely upon the Washington Post’s “Challenge Index”, without simultaneously paying careful attention to the NY State assessments (in the case of schools within this state) of college readiness, as determined by actual scores on NY State Regents exams in certain categories, they could obtain a very misguided sense of the value of one high school versus another.
As an example of this, I would invite readers to refer to a community commentary which provided analysis of the State assessments, as revealed in Newsday this past June, and which may be viewed on the following web page:
http://elwoodilluminations.blogspot.com/2011/06/sed-survey-shows-elwood-did-very-well.html
There was a subsequent article in the NY Times, which provided greater insight of the State process and of the meaningfulness of these assessments for John Glenn HS, and you may refer to the related community commentary on this web page:
http://elwoodilluminations.blogspot.com/2011/06/ny-times-article-offers-greater-insight.html
Now, to illustrate the somewhat mythological “value” of the Washington Post “Challenge Index”, contrast the Challenge Index results for Cold Spring Harbor HS, followed by the results of most of the other high schools in the Town of Huntington, with that of John Glenn HS, as seen in the chart below.
Then, contrast the results of the State assessments based upon actual grades achieved, rather than the number of tests taken without regard to scores achieved (i.e., the Washington Post “Challenge Index”).
You will discover that John Glenn’s Class of 2010 had the second best NY State key Regents scores among the nine high schools in the eight school districts in the Town of Huntington.
As a further analytical note, while I initially wondered why the E & E rate of Glenn was so low, in contrast with how well we did on the State’s assessments (again, based on actual scores on NY State Regents), it finally dawned on my slow mind that any school with a low percentage of its students taking these AP/IB/other college level courses (such as Glenn, in comparison to its peers), is predestined to have a low E & E score which is based, as the Post stated and as I cited in the third paragraph of this commentary, on “...the percent of all seniors who had at least one passing grade on an AP or IB exam.”
That was my “Ah-Ha” moment of the evening.
Now, for the dubious honors, and dubious value, of the Washington Post’s “Challenge Index” for the Class of 2010:
HS_____ Index ____Rank-NE ___Rank-National __E & E ___ Sub. Lunch.
Cold S H _4.085 ____ 17 ________117 __________74.50 ___ 0.00
Harborf. _ 3.258 ____36 ________244 __________57.70 ___6.00
HHH-W _2.542 _____75 ________478 __________46.00 ___11.00
HHH-E _2.457 _____88 ________533 __________44.40 ___ 10.00
Commack _2.174 ____ 115 _______694 __________40.00 ___ 3.00
Hunting. _2.104 ____125 ________750 __________34.40 ____32.00
Northp. _ 2.088 ____131 ________ 765 __________52.10 _____6.00
Glenn ___1.632 _____199 _______1,181 _________34.00 _____14.00
Whitman _1.583 ____212 ________1,240 _________37.40 _____36.00
Having dismissed the “Challenge Index” as a meaningful assessment of quality, there is nevertheless one possible application which can be used as a Kaizen Moment, or Continuous Improvement Opportunity, for the administrative management of John Glenn HS: How about challenging the students to try more demanding courses, as another way of improving their overall performance, and, particularly, their overall opportunities to excel in their post-secondary education endeavors?
In the preamble to their results, the Post described their methodology as follows: “The formula is simple: Divide the number of Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate or other college-level tests a school gave in 2010 by the number of graduating seniors. While not a measure of the overall quality of the school, the rating can reveal the level of a high school’s commitment to preparing average students for college.”
They went on to describe two additional measures which the Post reveals in their summary of statistics for the high schools covered by their survey: “E & E is the percent of all seniors who had at least one passing grade on an AP or IB exam. Subs lunch is the percent of all students designated low income.” It appears that neither of these two categories of information are used in their Challenge Index calculations, so you may simply think of them as informational data points.
This is a survey which was originally produced annually by Newsweek magazine, which was sold by the Washington Post in 2010, with the Post obviously retaining this survey which seems to generate interest among some parents. To my mind, an index which is determined by a number of tests taken, without any regard for the actual grades obtained by the students taking such tests, is of very little value indeed.
Nevertheless, it may be a good indicator that a particular high school might be taking a much-too-exclusive attitude about who may take such tests, or even an attitude that it fails to sufficiently challenge the students in that high school.
However, if someone were to focus solely upon the Washington Post’s “Challenge Index”, without simultaneously paying careful attention to the NY State assessments (in the case of schools within this state) of college readiness, as determined by actual scores on NY State Regents exams in certain categories, they could obtain a very misguided sense of the value of one high school versus another.
As an example of this, I would invite readers to refer to a community commentary which provided analysis of the State assessments, as revealed in Newsday this past June, and which may be viewed on the following web page:
http://elwoodilluminations.blogspot.com/2011/06/sed-survey-shows-elwood-did-very-well.html
There was a subsequent article in the NY Times, which provided greater insight of the State process and of the meaningfulness of these assessments for John Glenn HS, and you may refer to the related community commentary on this web page:
http://elwoodilluminations.blogspot.com/2011/06/ny-times-article-offers-greater-insight.html
Now, to illustrate the somewhat mythological “value” of the Washington Post “Challenge Index”, contrast the Challenge Index results for Cold Spring Harbor HS, followed by the results of most of the other high schools in the Town of Huntington, with that of John Glenn HS, as seen in the chart below.
Then, contrast the results of the State assessments based upon actual grades achieved, rather than the number of tests taken without regard to scores achieved (i.e., the Washington Post “Challenge Index”).
You will discover that John Glenn’s Class of 2010 had the second best NY State key Regents scores among the nine high schools in the eight school districts in the Town of Huntington.
As a further analytical note, while I initially wondered why the E & E rate of Glenn was so low, in contrast with how well we did on the State’s assessments (again, based on actual scores on NY State Regents), it finally dawned on my slow mind that any school with a low percentage of its students taking these AP/IB/other college level courses (such as Glenn, in comparison to its peers), is predestined to have a low E & E score which is based, as the Post stated and as I cited in the third paragraph of this commentary, on “...the percent of all seniors who had at least one passing grade on an AP or IB exam.”
That was my “Ah-Ha” moment of the evening.
Now, for the dubious honors, and dubious value, of the Washington Post’s “Challenge Index” for the Class of 2010:
HS_____ Index ____Rank-NE ___Rank-National __E & E ___ Sub. Lunch.
Cold S H _4.085 ____ 17 ________117 __________74.50 ___ 0.00
Harborf. _ 3.258 ____36 ________244 __________57.70 ___6.00
HHH-W _2.542 _____75 ________478 __________46.00 ___11.00
HHH-E _2.457 _____88 ________533 __________44.40 ___ 10.00
Commack _2.174 ____ 115 _______694 __________40.00 ___ 3.00
Hunting. _2.104 ____125 ________750 __________34.40 ____32.00
Northp. _ 2.088 ____131 ________ 765 __________52.10 _____6.00
Glenn ___1.632 _____199 _______1,181 _________34.00 _____14.00
Whitman _1.583 ____212 ________1,240 _________37.40 _____36.00
Having dismissed the “Challenge Index” as a meaningful assessment of quality, there is nevertheless one possible application which can be used as a Kaizen Moment, or Continuous Improvement Opportunity, for the administrative management of John Glenn HS: How about challenging the students to try more demanding courses, as another way of improving their overall performance, and, particularly, their overall opportunities to excel in their post-secondary education endeavors?
Sunday, July 17, 2011
One Public Employees Union Abandons Greed and Protects Jobs
In today's edition of the NY Times, on page 16 (and available online http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/nyregion/to-save-jobs-union-approves-big-concessions-in-deal-with-cuomo.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=thomas%20kaplan&st=cse) there is a most interesting article regarding a 55,000 member union, the Public Employees Federation, which has come to agreement with New York State on a number of cost-saving measures in order for them to protect the jobs of members.
Imagine that; they understand that government now has a limited amount of money available for pay and benefits, and can either pay the full freight, the whole kahuna, the max package, to a smaller number of workers, or they can pay a reduced amount to a larger number of workers.
Gee, I wish that Elwood's teachers union had appreciated that concept; we could have avoided most of the layoffs of younger teachers that our district was forced to let go, after Elwood Teachers Alliance declined to give a no-future-benefit tie-in concession to our Board of Education and District.
As stated in the article, the Public Employees Federation "...agreed to forgo across-the-board raises for three years, accept furlough days for the first time and increase the amount members contribute toward their health insurance coverage."
The article went on to state that “This was a difficult agreement to reach, but with our members’ jobs in peril and the state’s fiscal hardship, we’ve stepped up and made the necessary sacrifices,” Mr. Brynien [note: Kenneth Brynien is the union president] said in a statement. “The agreement will preserve our members’ jobs and careers while bringing long-term fiscal stability to the state.”
The article is certainly worth reading.
Imagine that; they understand that government now has a limited amount of money available for pay and benefits, and can either pay the full freight, the whole kahuna, the max package, to a smaller number of workers, or they can pay a reduced amount to a larger number of workers.
Gee, I wish that Elwood's teachers union had appreciated that concept; we could have avoided most of the layoffs of younger teachers that our district was forced to let go, after Elwood Teachers Alliance declined to give a no-future-benefit tie-in concession to our Board of Education and District.
As stated in the article, the Public Employees Federation "...agreed to forgo across-the-board raises for three years, accept furlough days for the first time and increase the amount members contribute toward their health insurance coverage."
The article went on to state that “This was a difficult agreement to reach, but with our members’ jobs in peril and the state’s fiscal hardship, we’ve stepped up and made the necessary sacrifices,” Mr. Brynien [note: Kenneth Brynien is the union president] said in a statement. “The agreement will preserve our members’ jobs and careers while bringing long-term fiscal stability to the state.”
The article is certainly worth reading.
New Item in District Headlines Offers Analysis and Directio
[Originally transmitted to Elwood Community Network on 7/9]
In checking the website of the Elwood School District, this afternoon, I noticed that the latest posting is that of the statement made at last Tuesday's BOE meeting.
For your convenience I have pasted the item below, but you can also access it from the "Headlines" section of the Home Page, STATEMENT FROM THE BOARD OF EDUCATION PRESENTED AT THE REORGANIZATION MEETING JULY 5TH, 2011.
I find myself in particular agreement with the following part, in the fourth paragraph, of that statement:
"Unfortunately, as many of you know, local boards of education do not have much say in the majority of their budget expenditures. Laws that foster entitlements, Last In First Out legislation over merit, one-sided bargaining rules, and the growth of state legislated mandated expenses, in combination with the reduction of state aid, are crippling our ability to provide the full breadth of education that all children deserve."
Of course, if I had been asked to write a statement for the Board, I would have added a sentence to their second paragraph, to very specifically address the missing elephant from the room of those staff members who really cared. But, I tend to be more candid than most people, and less solicitous of those who understand much more about taking than giving.
The Board's statement goes on to address the fiscal challenges which the Board, and the District, and the students, residents and taxpayers, and many staff members, all faced head-on in April and May of this year, and begins steps in an effort to address the problems which all school districts face in New York.
It is certainly worth your review, and consideration.
Jerry Hannon
............................................
STATEMENT FROM THE BOARD OF EDUCATION PRESENTED AT THE REORGANIZATION MEETING JULY 5TH, 2011
Dear Community Members,
The Board of Education is very happy that the budget passed, and we thank you all for the support.
We, personally, and as a Board, want to thank those members of our staff who responded to the Board of Education’s request to follow the lead of our Superintendent and Central Office Administrators to cut increases or freeze compensation in the upcoming year - a sincere thank you to all.
The Board of Education put forward this budget, although we did so with great concern. The Board recognizes that 7.98% increases are not sustainable.
Unfortunately, as many of you know, local boards of education do not have much say in the majority of their budget expenditures. Laws that foster entitlements, Last In First Out legislation over merit, one-sided bargaining rules, and the growth of state legislated mandated expenses, in combination with the reduction of state aid, are crippling our ability to provide the full breadth of education that all children deserve. This is something that must change. We will not and cannot wait until December or January to see the cards we have been dealt by Albany and hope that we can deliver a reasonably low percentage [tax levy] increase next year.
We need to pressure Albany and our local legislators that represent us in Albany now to legislate structural changes that will improve education, not diminish it, while helping us lower expenses and find revenues from sources outside of the tax base. We must rise up as a community and demand progressive thinking and action in NY State that is long overdue. Moreover, we must keep that pressure applied until we accomplish our goals.
Please join us in letting our local representatives from Albany know how we feel. We are in the process of organizing an interested group that will work parallel to official BOE efforts for those who wish to make the voice of Elwood heard. This organization will be formed and operated outside of our Board of Education umbrella, although Board members, as well as former Board members, will be engaged as personal volunteers in this movement.
Nikki Crowley and Melissa Maher will be gathering names, phone numbers, and email addresses after the meeting from anyone who would like to join this organized effort.
In May 2011, a proud Elwood community stood up and displayed a tremendous commitment to the education of children with a generosity that defines our character. Simply put, we took care of our children; however, we did not take care of our problems. The Board of Education, together with the support of our community, is willing and ready to fight the fight against those who threaten our mission; that is our children’s opportunity to have a competitive, well-rounded education.
We must take action and tell Albany how we feel and more importantly, tell them what we need. We will not stand by… We do not want to raise taxes while diminishing education. Please join the effort.
Thank you,
Joseph Fusaro, President
Members of Elwood Union Free School District’s Board of Education
In checking the website of the Elwood School District, this afternoon, I noticed that the latest posting is that of the statement made at last Tuesday's BOE meeting.
For your convenience I have pasted the item below, but you can also access it from the "Headlines" section of the Home Page, STATEMENT FROM THE BOARD OF EDUCATION PRESENTED AT THE REORGANIZATION MEETING JULY 5TH, 2011.
I find myself in particular agreement with the following part, in the fourth paragraph, of that statement:
"Unfortunately, as many of you know, local boards of education do not have much say in the majority of their budget expenditures. Laws that foster entitlements, Last In First Out legislation over merit, one-sided bargaining rules, and the growth of state legislated mandated expenses, in combination with the reduction of state aid, are crippling our ability to provide the full breadth of education that all children deserve."
Of course, if I had been asked to write a statement for the Board, I would have added a sentence to their second paragraph, to very specifically address the missing elephant from the room of those staff members who really cared. But, I tend to be more candid than most people, and less solicitous of those who understand much more about taking than giving.
The Board's statement goes on to address the fiscal challenges which the Board, and the District, and the students, residents and taxpayers, and many staff members, all faced head-on in April and May of this year, and begins steps in an effort to address the problems which all school districts face in New York.
It is certainly worth your review, and consideration.
Jerry Hannon
............................................
STATEMENT FROM THE BOARD OF EDUCATION PRESENTED AT THE REORGANIZATION MEETING JULY 5TH, 2011
Dear Community Members,
The Board of Education is very happy that the budget passed, and we thank you all for the support.
We, personally, and as a Board, want to thank those members of our staff who responded to the Board of Education’s request to follow the lead of our Superintendent and Central Office Administrators to cut increases or freeze compensation in the upcoming year - a sincere thank you to all.
The Board of Education put forward this budget, although we did so with great concern. The Board recognizes that 7.98% increases are not sustainable.
Unfortunately, as many of you know, local boards of education do not have much say in the majority of their budget expenditures. Laws that foster entitlements, Last In First Out legislation over merit, one-sided bargaining rules, and the growth of state legislated mandated expenses, in combination with the reduction of state aid, are crippling our ability to provide the full breadth of education that all children deserve. This is something that must change. We will not and cannot wait until December or January to see the cards we have been dealt by Albany and hope that we can deliver a reasonably low percentage [tax levy] increase next year.
We need to pressure Albany and our local legislators that represent us in Albany now to legislate structural changes that will improve education, not diminish it, while helping us lower expenses and find revenues from sources outside of the tax base. We must rise up as a community and demand progressive thinking and action in NY State that is long overdue. Moreover, we must keep that pressure applied until we accomplish our goals.
Please join us in letting our local representatives from Albany know how we feel. We are in the process of organizing an interested group that will work parallel to official BOE efforts for those who wish to make the voice of Elwood heard. This organization will be formed and operated outside of our Board of Education umbrella, although Board members, as well as former Board members, will be engaged as personal volunteers in this movement.
Nikki Crowley and Melissa Maher will be gathering names, phone numbers, and email addresses after the meeting from anyone who would like to join this organized effort.
In May 2011, a proud Elwood community stood up and displayed a tremendous commitment to the education of children with a generosity that defines our character. Simply put, we took care of our children; however, we did not take care of our problems. The Board of Education, together with the support of our community, is willing and ready to fight the fight against those who threaten our mission; that is our children’s opportunity to have a competitive, well-rounded education.
We must take action and tell Albany how we feel and more importantly, tell them what we need. We will not stand by… We do not want to raise taxes while diminishing education. Please join the effort.
Thank you,
Joseph Fusaro, President
Members of Elwood Union Free School District’s Board of Education
Sunday, July 3, 2011
What Matters Most? The Students, or....
Sometime between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning (entries on the District's website are not time-dated, and I do not check it daily), the Elwood School District posted a very important notice.
Those of you who followed the activities of this year's extraordinarily difficult budget-setting process know how hard the Board worked to creatively find ways to retain as much educational content as possible, even while being forced by economic circumstances to cut back the Kindergarten program from Full-Day to Half-Day.
But, you may also remember the dialogue, chiefly among former Ass't Sup't for Human Resources Ron Friedman, and Superintendent Peter Scordo, and Trustee Dan Ciccone, regarding the possibility of teachers union impediments to the Board's creative proposals.
In other words, for the proposals to succeed it would require the consent -- or at least the non-objection -- of the teachers union, which also means that they would have to put the interests of the kindergarten students, and their parents, and the welfare of the District and its residents, ahead of their own parochial interests.
Interestingly, though I'm not sure whether it is from a sense of realizing the irony or instead a more disturbing observation of the possible cynicism, you may also recall that when Full Day Kindergarten was being pushed, very hard, from a Harley perspective, former Principal Virginia Cancroft invited a number of her teachers, on various occasions, to address the Board and the community. Several of those teachers expressed a view that a Full Day Kindergarten program was important for those children who might otherwise lag a bit behind their peers, and that having additional time and an opportunity for extra learning could be essential.
However, with the teachers union's recent rejection of any "no-strings-attached" creative use of teaching assistants, to educationally supplement the necessitated reduction to a Half Day Program, one would have to question whether the original rationale was actually more important for the students, or more important for the teachers union and their members.
The memo, in its depressing candor, is provided, below, in its entirety, for your convenient reference.
As is made clear in the referenced letter from attorney John Gross, which one can obtain by clicking the link through the website announcement, in order to achieve this creative modification, the District would instead have to negotiate a separate agreement with our teachers union, Elwood Teachers Alliance, and I would roughly translate that as "give the union something else" in order for the kids to get a break.
So much for the role of creativity and caring about the children.
.................................................
[Notice posted on the District website]
Sometime between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning (entries on the District's website are not time-dated, and I do not check it daily), the Elwood School District posted a very important notice.
Those of you who followed the activities of this year's extraordinarily difficult budget-setting process know how hard the Board worked to creatively find ways to retain as much educational content as possible, even while being forced by economic circumstances to cut back the Kindergarten program from Full-Day to Half-Day.
But, you may also remember the dialogue, chiefly among former Ass't Sup't for Human Resources Ron Friedman, and Superintendent Peter Scordo, and Trustee Dan Ciccone, regarding the possibility of teachers union impediments to the Board's creative proposals.
In other words, for the proposals to succeed it would require the consent -- or at least the non-objection -- of the teachers union, which also means that they would have to put the interests of the kindergarten students, and their parents, and the welfare of the District and its residents, ahead of their own parochial interests.
Interestingly, though I'm not sure whether it is from a sense of realizing the irony or instead a more disturbing observation of the possible cynicism, you may also recall that when Full Day Kindergarten was being pushed, very hard, from a Harley perspective, former Principal Virginia Cancroft invited a number of her teachers, on various occasions, to address the Board and the community. Several of those teachers expressed a view that a Full Day Kindergarten program was important for those children who might otherwise lag a bit behind their peers, and that having additional time and an opportunity for extra learning could be essential.
However, with the teachers union's recent rejection of any "no-strings-attached" creative use of teaching assistants, to educationally supplement the necessitated reduction to a Half Day Program, one would have to question whether the original rationale was actually more important for the students, or more important for the teachers union and their members.
The memo, in its depressing candor, is provided, below, in its entirety, for your convenient reference.
As is made clear in the referenced letter from attorney John Gross, which one can obtain by clicking the link through the website announcement, in order to achieve this creative modification, the District would instead have to negotiate a separate agreement with our teachers union, Elwood Teachers Alliance, and I would roughly translate that as "give the union something else" in order for the kids to get a break.
So much for the role of creativity and caring about the children.
.................................................
[Notice posted on the District website]
Kindergarten Update
As many community members are aware, the 2011-12 budget approved by voters in mid-May calls for a reduction in the district’s kindergarten program from the current full-day program to a half-day session.
An innovative and cost-effective solution was sought by the Board of Education that would minimize this partial loss of program by moving forward with a supplemental half-day “Kinder-skills” session that utilized teaching assistants instead of teachers. The teaching assistants would appropriately be supervised by a teacher as well as building and central administration.
Unfortunately, this program met opposition from the Elwood Teachers’ Alliance, and after extensive investigation and consultation with legal counsel, we have been advised that this option is not possible because it would be formally challenged as an improper work practice under the existing collective bargaining agreement (you can read the attorney memo here). Furthermore, based on precedent, it is likely that defending this challenge would be costly and, ultimately, unsuccessful.
We are disappointed by the loss of our full-day kindergarten program, but acknowledge that difficult choices must be made under the financial circumstances that exist. We will continue to explore creative ways of implementing important programs for our students and hope that the entire school community will embrace new endeavors in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
