PARSS Newsletter, June 2000

Wally Nunn is the rock-ribbed conservative Chairman of the Delaware County Council and a member of the state school board. You don't have to be too far in a conversation with Wally, a Vietnam vet, to get the general idea of what's on his mind. He has been called every name that you can think of and many more. The one thing you can be sure of when you are talking to him -he tells it straight and challenges you to give a different opinion. Not that he doesn't listen, but you better have some powerful facts at your disposal to counter what he is saying. His primary goal, at this time in his life, is to get rid of the real estate tax as a method of funding local school districts. He speaks in military terms and asks if the Department of Defense in Washington operated like we do in education, there would be a battalion of soldiers from wealthy districts with all of the latest equipment, well supplied and trained, while a battalion from a poor district might not have all of the ammunition and weaponry that would be needed to fight a war. Their soldiers might be poorly trained and ill-equipped for battle. He asks if education is not as important as defense. His answer is that it is equally important and maybe more so.

He talks of a poor woman in one of the districts in Delaware County who spoke to him about high taxes that took 41% of her income to pay. She did want to pay it, but it was a huge burden to pay that real estate tax bill. He says these things happen, while in the wealthy districts, those that can afford to pay more do not.

He would like to see education funded by the state. He believes that "All Children Should Have the Opportunity to Succeed." Notice that he does not say that we can guarantee success for all children, but we must give them an opportunity. The way things are now, Wally says, does not work and must be changed.



BUDGET ANALYSIS ON WEBSITE

The 2000-2001 State Education Budget Analysis can be found on our website www.parss.org. For any questions that you might have on the state budget, please reply to the email button on the PARSS website.


AND WHO IS THIS MAN?

YOUR MISSION

Identify this man. Do you know him? Does he resemble someone you know? Is he friend or foe? Think you have the answer - email Arnold Hillman at arnold@parss.org. So far, he's the only one who knows!

JOE SAYS . . .RUMBINGS OF CHANGE

Well, I chose the title, now I have to define it. So there are rumblings, but what kind? Choose the wrong metaphor and I convey the wrong image.
Stomach . . . thunder . . . bowling ball . . . train? Yes, I'll go with train rumblings, because when you hear them, you know something is really coming down the tracks. It may not be fast, but it will be powerful, and will accomplish its task: "I think I can, I think I can."

I've written before about the renewed hope many of us in PARSS feel about the possibilities of progress in school funding and tax reform. That continues to grow and many of you are an active part of it. Those of us who work for PARSS have to make sure, through this newsletter and the website, that you are kept abreast of what is going on in that arena.

For this issue I'd like to tell you of the changes taking place within PARSS itself. For many years the equity suit served as the raison d'etre of the organization. Anything else we did was ancillary. Although equity and funding reform remain as major goals, the PARSS Board of Directors felt we needed to work on a broader agenda of programs and services, and that we should attempt to plan them out into a multi-year future, rather than year to year.

Last fall the Board commissioned the firm of Bright Futures Unlimited to conduct a number of focus groups around the state with teams from member districts. The purpose was to gain information about district and school level needs, and to determine if PARSS could play a role in meeting those needs.
This work is now completed, and we are working with Bright Futures to determine goals, priorities, costs, methods of service delivery etc. Once we have accomplished this, we will move to action planning. I hope that by October we will be able to set the product of this work before the membership.

RETURN TO LEECHBURG

Businesses and schools in Armstrong County are collaborating to educate their residents on the effects of inequitable and inadequate school funding on the community.

The Apollo-Ridge, Armstrong, Freeport Area and Leechburg Area School Districts and Lenape Vocational-Technical School, along with the Armstrong County and StrongLand Chambers of Commerce and PARSS are sponsoring community meetings with Tim Potts, director of the Pennsylvania School Reform Network, who will talk about how students and taxpayers in rural Pennsylvania are disadvantaged by the current state funding system and about current proposals being considered in Harrisburg to change it.

Potts will appear on "Talk of the Town with Jack Heim," a local cable television show in Kittanning on the evening of June 27. On the 28th, he will speak to businesspeople at a luncheon at Kenny B's in West Kittanning at 11:30 and then to members of the general public at an open meeting at Leechburg High School at 7:15. This event will be preceded by a public reception at the school district cafeteria at 6:30. Potts will also be meeting with the editorial boards of local newspapers.

"In Armstrong County, everyone talks about economic development and about how property taxes are too high," said Chuck Pascal, Leechburg school board vice president. "But no one ever seems to be focused on the real problem, which is lack of adequate and equitable state support for schools. Until that problem is solved, property taxes will continue to be too high and rural areas will continue to suffer economically."

Tim Potts' Armstrong County appearances will help educate residents and taxpayers that adequate and equitable school funding would be the best 'tax reform', and 'economic development' strategies that could be provided to rural areas by the Commonwealth.


THE CHALLENGE OF TRANSITION
Dr. Peter Flynn provided the following article and study for PARSS

All kinds of transitions in the superintendency are going on . . . for some of you, your student population is changing . . . some populations are getting poorer; some are becoming more suburban as the urban areas expand; some are becoming more diverse. Some transitions are taking place among board members . . . the political climate is changing. Some board members want to become more involved in the details of the operations of the school district . . . but I'll talk more about that a bit later.

Let's focus on two types of transitions that are happening with us as educational leaders.

The first kind of transition is transforming the job you already have. You know when I began as a superintendent in 1978, I was expected to be a good manager and to fix problems. I wanted to be an instructional leader, but frankly, I had little time for that in my first superintendency.

I was busy fixing the elementary buildings the fire chief wanted to close down and getting rid of a deficit that was equal to 10% of the budget. That was then.
School boards have different expectations for us today. We need to have different expectations for ourselves. Being a manager and a problem solver are required; instructional leadership is preferred; being some kind of a professional advisor to the board may be necessary at times. 

These roles sometimes depend upon the kind of board that we have. 

• ELITE/DOMINATED BOARD requires a FUNCTIONARY (someone who will carry out a pre-determined agenda.
• A FACTIONAL BOARD (TWO GROUPS COMPETING) requires a POLITICAL STRATEGIST
• A PLURALISTIC BOARD or one where the power is diffuse, needs a PROFESSIONAL
• ADVISORAN INERT/LATENT POWER BOARD needs a DECISION MAKER

It is after we get a handle on which kind of board we are dealing with that we might be wise to change our mode or our method.

Before, we switch jobs, we have to have a good sense of why we want to change and a good sense of who we are. People talk about re-inventing themselves. I am not so sure about that concept but I do know that we have to 'sharpen our saw' as Stephen Covey says. Meetings like this are helpful (PARSS Annual Meeting), but we also have to practice our skills - the skills of the collaborative decision maker, involving the stakeholders, for example. Let's face it, many of us who got into this business of school administration were control freaks. Now some of us are recovering control freaks. It's almost like we need a support group. No one else understands us. How often do you hear; "Why would anyone in his right mind want to be superintendent" or "I wouldn't take your job for all the money in the world." 

Things are very different today. Have you tried to hire generation X employees? I mean the employees we hire today are different and those of you in the smaller school districts realize how difficult it is to attract competent people. They come with different expectations. I heard of a place that gave you your birthday off to attract employees. Some employees come expecting casual day . . . and say "I want to be able to bring my dog to work with me." I ran into a guy who believed in taking a nap every afternoon. I drew the line when he wanted his secretary to read him a story. So, if we want to make a transition of transforming the jobs we have, we have to hire the right people. Recruiting and hiring the right people is difficult today. Being a superintendent or an educational leader is difficult.

The second type of transition is that of changing superintendencies . . . going from one superintendency to another. If the current job is bothering you . . . having trouble sleeping at night or stomach problems . . . it could be time to look for another job. Me, I have been through some difficult jobs . . . I could tell you some war stories, but I always slept like a baby . . . which means I frequently cried myself to sleep and sometimes wet the bed. The Dakota Sioux have a tribal wisdom that says when you discover you're riding a dead horse, it's best to get off.

Instead, many of us in education buy a stronger whip or say, "but, this is the way I have always ridden this horse." Or we form a community task force to study the horse . . . or arrange to visit other sites, to see how they ride dead horses . . . you get the idea. Sometimes our own job is the dead horse.
I've certainly seen my share of transitions. I am a superintendent in transition . . . Freeport, IL with about 5,000 students.

Some would question that kind of move . . . but after making the predictable moves of going to larger districts, and doing that for twenty one years, I sought out a smaller school district, because I was looking for something different, not something bigger. I was looking for the right work environment, for the right school board. And that leads me to the second thing that I want to talk with you about tonight.

THE STUDY THAT YOU PARTICIPATED IN AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR OUR CHALLENGE DURING THIS TIME OF TRANSITION

People in good jobs don't want to move - the study at Fordham by Cooper, Fusarelli and Carella found that only 51% of the superintendents they surveyed were willing to consider a 'good job' in another district, if one were available. As we look more closely at the data, we find that only 14% said that they would 'definitely' consider moving to a 'good job'. Cooper and the others titled their study "Career Crisis in the School Superintendency?" 

The pool is drying up they say, yet stability might be a good thing - actually it may be good that superintendents don't want to move and are content with their positions. Nevertheless, each year 10-12% of the 13,000 superintendencies in America turn over. 

My thought on this is that a superintendent's relationship with the board is a critical factor. I have some strong feelings about the importance of a relationship between the superintendent and the board. And when I began my 'unplanned sabbatical', I was interested in how you, my colleagues, perceived certain traits/characteristics or ways of operating of school boards as being either appealing or unappealing.


Survey Respondents

Two hundred surveys were sent to the superintendent members of the Pennsylvania Association of Rural and Small Schools. One hundred twenty-one surveys were returned. Thanks to you, Arnold and Carol Hillman, for the 60% return.

Instrument and Design

Superintendents are busy people. We wanted to develop an instrument that would take less than ten minutes to complete and be on one page, so that it could easily be faxed back. The survey asked the respondent to . . ., "Please rate the appeal of these qualities of school boards, if you were considering the superintendency in that district, using the following scale: Very Unappealing (1), Unappealing (2), Not Important (3), Appealing (4) or Very Appealing (5).

So what can we conclude from the results of this survey?
In a nutshell, before you, superintendents in PARSS, will consider moving to another job, you want a board that is made up of people who will stay around for a while, at least more than three years; and does not meet once a week (because if they do, you know they are doing more than setting policy); and a board that is not involved in personnel decisions on every level; and one that definitely does not bring up surprises at board meetings.

You want a board that becomes involved in board development or training on a frequent and regular basis; one that recognizes the superintendent and staff for accomplishments; one that has a vision for positive change and reform, considers the superintendent as a member of the board team and considers the superintendent's evaluation as a growth experience. The issue of several standing committees is up in the air and does not seem to be a critical factor one way or the other, although the majority of respondents felt it was a positive attribute of a board.

Now here comes the stuff that won't make it into the journals. It is not based on careful quantitative research, but on observations over the past 25 years as an assistant superintendent and superintendent, of my own professional life and the experiences of my colleagues. Nevertheless, it is real and it's important that people know about what you do and we should celebrate what you do as school leaders. As school leaders, we are responsible for 46.5 million students every day of the school year. Six million of those students speak English as a second language; 5 million of the students are receiving special education services; 2 million of them are abused and more than 500,00 are homeless . . . the 30% of them that qualify for free and reduced lunch receive their one hot meal of the day in the form of school lunch. I know who you are . . .

AN ANALYSIS OF SPECIAL ED. FUNDING 2000-2001
(By Dr. Eric Elliott, Assistant Director of Research, Pennsylvania State Education Association)

SPECIAL EDUCATION

The final state budget provides for a $48.8 million increase in the special education subsidy - an increase of 7.3 percent over the funds available for 1999-00. In addition, $14.8 million over the allocations for last year apparently have been proposed for CORE services, the Institutionalized Children's Program, and for a doubling of the special education contingency fund.

Secretary Hickok noted in his budget briefing that the Department of Education has confirmed that the special education "load" of a school district varies inversely with the wealth of the families it serves. Therefore, the following formula includes supplements based upon measures of district wealth. Individual district increases are in the attached table: "2000-2001 Final Special Education Funding (estimated)."

• Each district will receive as a "base" payment for 2000-01 the total amount they received in 1999-00 (including any supplemental and minimum increase payments).
• Supplement for all districts, based on general incidence and relative wealth. In addition, each district will receive as new supplemental funding about $210 multiplied by 16% of its 1998-99 ADM weighted by its 1999-00 aid ratio. 

The Legislature added two supplements not included in the Governor's initial proposal, and increased the guaranteed minimum increase. The two supplements are similar to the supplements included last year, but this year the first does not apply to lower-wealth districts. They are calculated as follows:

• Supplement for districts with higher-than-average wealth, special education spending, and taxes. Thirty-three (33) districts receive an additional supplement equal to 20% of $1,380 multiplied by 15% of the district's 1999-00 average daily membership (ADM) since they meet the following two criteria:
• The district's 1997-98 special education expenditures as a percentage of spending on regular, special, and vocational programs is greater than or equal to the state average (16.47%) AND the district's 1997-98 equalized millage rate (local tax effort) is greater than or equal to the statemmedian of 21.1.
• The district's 1999-00 market value/personal income aid ratio is less than .5400
• Supplement for high incidence districts. The 79 districts with incidence rates for mildly and severely disabled students over 14.31 percent (25 percent higher than the state average of 11.45 percent) will receive an additional supplement equal to $1,380 multiplied by the number of students above 125% of the statewide average.
• All districts are guaranteed minimum increase of five percent over 1999-00. For 157 districts, the new supplemental funding will not produce a five-percent increase over the total amount they received as a special education subsidy for 1999-00. These districts will also receive the amount necessary to assure a five-percent increase.
  

PARENT-FRIENDLY SCHOOLS
(By Carol Hillman, President, Bright Futures Unlimited)

Have you wondered how to make yours a PARENT-FRIENDLY school building?
Buildings of any age can be warm and inviting or cold and off-putting. Hang around the school business long enough and you'll be able to "sense" a friendly building the moment you walk through the front door. Friendly buildings are clean. The floors are polished and there are signs of life everywhere; plants, light, seasonal art work, happy sounds. Unfriendly buildings are dark; the floors are scuffed and they have bare walls or, even worse, bare bulletin boards. They are dead quiet because the halls are empty and all the doors are shut.

The atmosphere in a school building reflects the attitude of the people who work there. Clean, bright, colorful buildings say, "We take pride in our center of learning. We love our jobs and work hard at them. We hope you like it here." Sullen buildings send another message, "We're just passing through so don't judge us by what you see. It takes all we have just to get through each day; we don't have the energy to smile."

Do we intimidate or ingratiate? Unfortunately many adults in our communities have some pretty negative memories of their own school days. Now, as parents or grandparents, they feel intimidated by our school buildings and by us. It's just a few short steps from feeling intimidated to being defensive to acting hostile. We want to make sure that when the community visits our schools (read "their schools") they feel welcome.

Pay attention to details. Start with the mandated sign on your outside doors: 'All Visitors Must Report to the Office.' Try adding pictures of office staff and their names, with a greeting such as, "PLEASE REPORT TO OUR OFFICE, WE WANT TO SAY, 'HELLO.'" While you're reviewing your entrance way, think about adding some plants and a table with information about the school. Make sure the sign identifying the front office is visible from the front door and the wall displays are fresh and relevant. Keep an open dish of candy on the counter in the office next to the recently instituted visitor's ID badges. 

A friendly face goes a long way. Does the staffer who picks up on the outside line answer with, "Thank you for calling the Adams School. This is Betty Ford. How may I help you?' Make it a goal to have calls answered by the third ring and a policy to return calls within one school day.

Avoid sending visitors off on their won to find the Guidance Office or a classroom; perhaps students could be stationed for short periods of time outside the office to serve as a guide. Make sure to keep use of education acronyms limited to discussions among educators. Nothing turns parents off more than sitting through a meeting about their child, in a foreign language.

Most of all remember, nothing is more precious to a parent that his or her child. Parent-friendly schools find a myriad of ways to say, "Thank you for entrusting your child to us. We know you love him/her, so do we." Parent-friendly schools ensure happy faces coming through your doors.


FAITH, COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC EDUCATION

The Moral Basis for Action Now For more than 100 years, Public Education in this country has been the way we have educated the great majority of our citizens. We have done so out of the conviction that a democracy requires an educated citizenry who contribute to the common good through individual achievement, as well as citizens in the community. That vision is in trouble today because we lack the will to ensure that every child has access to excellence in educational opportunity, regardless of where that child lives.  This situation presents a moral challenge to the faith community. We need to nurture the will to ensure that each child has a reasonable opportunity to fulfill his/her potential. We believe that God has made every person in God's own likeness. God is present in every person; therefore every person has everlasting value. That sacred dignity is eroded when children, by accident of birth and place of residence, are deprived of access to excellence in educational opportunity. As people of faith, we are called to work for change in the priorities of our society. While experimentation is likely to grow through various voucher and charter school proposals, the vast majority of students now and for the foreseeable future will be educated in the public schools. Only those with a good education will be able to succeed in the new high tech economy.  Today disparity grows ever wider between the quality of educational opportunity available to children in wealthy communities as compared to poorer urban and rural communities. This is unfair and unjust. The failure to provide good education in every community is at the root of many social ills. The moral challenge before us is to transform the priorities of our Commonwealth that lets children languish in insufficiently funded schools, while spending more on incarceration after they get in trouble in later life.  The moral challenge goes to the very heart of our faith understanding of what it means to live in community. The moral quality of every society is seen in how the weakest and most vulnerable are treated. Children in schools that lack qualified teachers and challenging academic programs are at risk. We are called to care, not only for our own children and to nurture their passage into meaningful and useful adult life, but to have concern for all children. We betray our faith if we ignore this most urgent challenge. If we rise to the challenge we may be making the most crucial witness for a servant people of faith in these days.  Why Action is Urgent Now The Prophet Jeremiah knew that people are made to live in community, in a fabric of relationships in which the unique sacredness of each one is respected, and yet where none can achieve their own full destiny without the others. We have that life not as a matter of our choice. Rather, our interdependence is a given, it is in the nature of the way we have been made.

This truth is an important lens through which to view our life in the Greater Philadelphia region. Our region is experiencing a dangerous social and economic polarization as poverty is deepening in central city neighborhoods and older suburbs, destabilizing schools and neighborhoods and contributing to increases in crime and the exodus of middle-class families and businesses. At the same time middle-income communities outside Philadelphia often do not have sufficient tax base to support schools and a growing demand for more services, as they receive new people fleeing the city. These fiscally stressed communities gradually begin to experience the same problems of disinvestments and flight that have eroded the fabric of some Philadelphia neighborhoods. On the outer fringes of the region rapid growth is occurring in affluent communities dominated by large housing developments and shopping malls consuming thousands of acres of forest and farmland, and creating environmental stress and increased traffic congestion. In both city and suburb there is resistance to increased taxes and communities must struggle to meet 
growing needs with diminishing revenues.

Since 1975 the State's share of support for public education in Pennsylvania has fallen from 55% to about 36%. This dwindling state support has placed an ever-growing burden on local real estate taxes to pay for schools with the State shifting to the local tax burden hundreds of millions of dollars in the last 25 years. Communities with real estate wealth have been able to compensate for the shortfall through higher taxes. Poor communities in rural and urban areas however have had to downgrade their educational programs by providing fewer challenging academic programs and hiring fewer well-prepared teachers. Essential building maintenance is deferred, classes are larger, and fewer computers and other educational resources are available.

The journal Education Week, in their annual review of education in the U.S., rates states on various measures of educational quality. In this year's rating Pennsylvania earned a "D-" on overall equity and an "F" for the state equalization effort. Pennsylvania ranked in the bottom quarter of the states within our country on funding equity with wide variation in per pupil spending among the 501 school districts within the state. For example, in the 1997-98 school year Philadelphia spent $6,969 per student. The Chester-Upland District spent $7,718 per student and Upper Darby spent $7,017. In the same year the Radnor District was able to spend $13,288 per student. In Tredyffrin/Easttown $10,610 was spent per student. The median per student expenditure in the Philadelphia suburbs was about $1,900 more than available in Philadelphia, Chester and Upper Darby. The same pattern exists when comparing some of the lowest spending rural districts that have only about $5,355 per student per year as compared with a statewide average of $7,013. This means that the poor urban and rural districts have from $35,000 to $45,000 less per classroom to spend on instruction than is available in wealthier districts. This is wrong and unjust. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a responsibility to change the way education is funded.

The mandate for State responsibility for public education goes as far back as William Penn's original "frame of Government" adopted by Pennsylvania's First General
Assembly in 1682. Pennsylvania's first constitution adopted in 1776 and each constitution since have included provisions for state responsibility for a system of public education. The current Pennsylvania State Constitution, adopted in 1968, includes Article III, Section 14 that reads "The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a through and efficient system of public education to serve the needs of the Commonwealth."

The basic core issue has to do with finding a broader funding base than the local real estate tax to support public education. To date, the General Assembly has been unwilling to undertake any constructive measures to correct the disparity. It appears that positive action in support of public education will not be taken until there is broad expression of concern from voters across the state.

We therefore call upon each of our member congregations to make concern for the future of public education a priority during this year by:

1.  Holding forums or a series of discussions to build awareness of the problem of fair and adequate funding.
2.  Joining with others in the faith community in making your concern known o legislators and engage in a dialogue with legislators to seek commitment to a plan for making the necessary changes to unfair school finance policies.

We are a people of hope. Let us think deeply about these concerns and then let our voices be heard. The future of our children and our own future is at stake.



A NEW IDEA ABOUT RETIREMENT
(By Ricky Fritz, Superintendent, Kane Area School District)

There is a growing disparity in salaries in general and maximum salaries in the school districts in our area compared to other areas of the state. With the numbers of teachers available, especially in certain certification areas, it becomes more difficult to get good applicants. More and more I have had teachers and administrator applicants accept a position in another district, because the salary scale was higher and in some cases, they won't even come for an interview when they hear the salary scale.

I have talked to other superintendents and this has also been a problem in other districts in the area. The recent discussions on setting higher grades and standards for certification is only going to make things worse. I support the setting of higher standards to get quality teachers, but I am concerned about the increased competition for staff . I know part of the solution is to offer higher salaries. However, many of the districts in our area simply cannot afford it. Out of the 14 school districts in our intermediate unit area , eight of them were ranked in the top twenty per cent in tax effort according to the 97-98 figures.

In 1999-2000, the average maximum salaries in our IU for bachelor's degree was $50,760 and the average for the maximum salaries paid was $54,538 . When one hears top teacher salaries of $80,000+ in some districts, it is not hard to understand why the best teachers head in that direction. Needless to say , our ability to attract administrators to our area is difficult at best and impossible at times. Again, salaries are a problem. There have been several instances of principals and superintendents accepting positions one day, only to turn them down several days later.

Our staff members are not only penalized during their working years by lower incomes, but also at retirement. An average teacher in our IU will retire after thirty years making approximately $10,000-20,000 less each year they are retired.

One possible solution I see to this is to have a retirement indexing system. I would suggest, based on final salary information, that those districts such as the ones in our area ,are given a higher per cent for each year of service . For example: School teacher A has a final average of $55,000 and teacher B final average is $70,000. Both retire after 30 years under the current system , each receives 60% of their salary. A receives $33,000 per year, B, $42,000. Using an index of 2.5 % for the schools with a lower final average and letting the current 2% for higher salaried schools; A would receive $ 41,250 and B would get $42,000.

If something like this would be instituted, at least is would provide some incentive to teach in a small rural school. This isn't a new concept, because there have been loan forgiveness and other incentive programs in the past to encourage teachers and doctors to work in rural areas. This is also an ideal time to propose such a measure since the state and local share of retirement is at an all time low and the fund is currently funded at about 120%