March 2001

"Quality Education for all children in Pennsylvania"

Vol. 15 No 2

The state budget proposed by Governor Tom Ridge is the largest basic education increase in his 6 year term. Special education is also elevated by 10%. These numbers bode well for some districts in the state. However, the distribution, especially in basic education, has one school district in the state getting about 28% of the state’s proposal, while another district is proposed to get a 29% increase in its subsidy. Many PARSS districts, because of the nature of this distribution are slated to receive between 2 and 3 percent. PARSS is saddened by the elimination of the Small District Assistance component, which has been a part of state government since 1985. PARSS looks forward to some help in reinstituting that component, as well as a change in the way the total formula has been created. For a detailed analysis of the entire state education budget go to www.parss.org.
 

PARSS will again be holding focus groups across the state to ascertain what services it can provide to members across the Commonwealth. Last year’s groups focused on grantwriting, job searches, private communication and information for members and more focus group meetings. These suggestions have been carried out in this manner. Grant writing will be a major portion of the PARSS Annual Meeting. There is now a grant link on the PARSS website at www.parss.org. PARSS is in the process of securing the services of a grantwriting organization that will write grants for a reduced fee for PARSS members. A message board, chat room and direct link to all of our members is now a major part of our website. There is also now a set of job search links on the site (no sense duplicating what is already available). Finally, there will be more focus groups this year.

At the January 26, 2001 meeting of the PARSS Board of Directors, a set of legislative priorities was established for the 2001-2002 year. The Board voted to continue with its emphasis on a revision of general school funding subsidies and taxation. The Board further instructed the staff to look at a change in the special education formula from a rural perspective. Five members of the Board volunteered to review their special education expenditures that are not captured in the 1200 section of the budget. These reviews will be used to discuss the “actual” costs of special education. At the next Board meeting in April, pre-school programs and funding will be the main topic of discussion.

The January 2001 issue of the Phi Delta Kappa is devoted to “high stakes testing, standards and accountability. Many of the articles contained there in raise serious questions about all of these issues. The articles create a rationale for changing the ways in which we claim we want to be “Accountable.”

Supts. from Riverview IU discuss their testimony before the House Ed. Committee.

Does This Make any Sense?

One of the many problems involved with being an organization based on, and driven by, a set of beliefs, is that you must tilt with windmills, even when you know the act of doing so will win you little but a rather grim sense of satisfaciton.

Equality and excellence of opportunity for ALL schoolchildren and equity in school funding has been the raison d’etre for PARSS since our beginning day. There are many factors that have to be present for those conditions to be achieved, but, by far, the largest is money. If you talk about technological inequity (the uneven and unfair distribution of technology resources and training), you are essentially talking about money. If you speak of facilities inequity, you are speaking of the fact that most old and unrenovated buildings are located in urban and rural areas that lack the tax base to correct the situation. Et cetera, et cetera.

In recent years, we have experienced the potential for another form of inequity, and although it takes more of a stretch, it also has to do with the largely unfair way we fund education in this country, and how we predetermine children’s quality of education by where they live, and how much money their families have. It merits discussion because it is now being pushed vigorously by the new Bush administration.

I am referring to the effort to mandate national education standards. Many states, like Pennsylvania, have some form of standards based curriculum regulations, but their status of implementation varies all over the lot from “bad” to “slow progress”. Not that national standards would go into effect any differently, but the focus and attention would be dramatically intensified.

Many of you know of my strong support, over the years, for performance based education. A good performance based curriculum and assessment system needs standards. So I support them, and I believe, in theory, in state and national standards, but my reason for support of the latter may be different from that of the politicians we see skinning their knees to jump on the standards bandwagon.

Many espousers of national standards believe in them as guarantors of accountability, although I often think that they see accountability only in the form of aversive conditioning. I see national and state standards as guarantors of equity. How else can we know that the child in Otto-Eldred is receiving the same opportunity for a quality education as one in Lower Merion? Or the kid in Las Cruces, and the kid in Darien?

What I see happening though, is  something very different. These standards will be put in place without ever questioning the capacity of the schools to implement them. Sure some band-aid assisance will be offered, probably on a competitive basis, but I see little will to address the fundamental issues that create variability of opportunity in the first place.

Having said that, I will say that I am enormously heartened by the current interest in school funding reform in our General Assembly, and that a number of governors (conservatives all) have school funding and property tax reform high on their legislative agendas. New York is the most recent recipient of a court decision declaring their funding system unconstitutional. Imagine that, just a few miles away, with essentially the same language in their constitution that we have.

This year’s PARSS Annual Meeting program promises to be an exciting one. As you know, programs for succeeding years are predicated on the evaluations done the previous year. Our conference is always centered around the conferees and their interests. We will begin with David Hornbeck, former superintendent of Philadelphia, who has been working on equity issues since he was in the Department of Education in the 1970’s, the Commissioner of Education in Maryland, and as a consultant to the Kentucky equity suit and finally as Philly’s superintendent. He has begun a crusade across the Comonwealth to alert all of the various communities, especially the religious communities, of the danger of unequal funding and restricting opportunities for poor, city and rural students.

Jan Bissett, former Executive Director of the House Education Committee will report on her study of the history of school funding since the beginnings of schools in Pennsylvania. Deb Ward, Ginny Lays and Ellen Withrow, all accomplished grantwriters, will present a session on grant writing which will be followed by some private roundtable discussions. There will also be a roundtable presentation on how to access the various research tools on the PARSS website.

Legislative staffers on the House and Senate Education Committees will be there to discuss with us the Governor’s budget and what may occur with the final state budget. Dr. Terry Madonna is coming back to give us an updated version of the politics of education.

Our dinner speaker, Marty Strange, a long time rural expert, will give us a view of the national scene of rural education.

School districts are like snowflakes. No two are alike. Keeping this thought in mind, be assured that no two elementary schools, no two second grades, and no two science programs are alike. Your Schools Your Money will put square pegs in round holes.

The State has implemented a program called Your Schools, Your Money (YSYM), which will provide financial and other information for each school distrcit to be Internet accessible by the general public. The financial information is to be provided by school, by grade for elementary grades, and by subject area for secondary grades. The public will be able to access any district and compare what is spent on math versus science, etc. for secondary grades within the district or between other districts. For example, the public will be able to compare what is spent on 3rd grade at Middlesex Elementary School and on 3rd grade at Adams Elementary School and on 3rd grade in other school districts in Pennsylvania.

The concerns with reporting the financial information in the above explained manner is the potential for misinterpretation. Cost to operate a science program will be greater than the costs to operate a math program due to the use of consumable supplies used in experiments, etc. Without an explanation, the public may view this cost difference as a sleight to the math program, in favor of the science program. When the costs to operate our district’s secondary math program are compared to another district, the public may view one school district as investing more in their math program when other factors, such as enrollment, new program adoption, salaries, capital costs, physical changes, etc., may explain the cost difference. The YSYM program will allow for explanations, but there is no way to guarantee the public will read each and every explanation.

At the elementary level there is a great danger that the public will only look at costs when comparing 3rd grade at Middlesex and 3rd grade at Adams. There will be an oppotunity for the district to explain that the teacher salaries at Adams are lower because new teachers replaced recently retired teachers.

However, if the public ignores the written explanations they will see only costs. The public will not be able to determine, from numbers alone, that the costs in the 3rd grade are higher than the 4th grade because a new program was added to the 3rd grade program to better prepare the students for the 4th. The potential for misinterpretation increases when grade levels within the district are compared to other districts.

Finally, throughout all the seminars and reading material on the YSYM project, nothing has been written on the benefits to be derived by the students. There are no guidelines on how this project will improve the education program offered at the public schools. Actually, the YSYM program has a greater chance of damaging the public school system by allowing such detailed comparison of costs, of the public schools throughout the Commonwealth. The public must first be educated about how public schools operate. Answers to questions, such as how school systems are funded, what an unfunded mandate is and how it affects the running of schools, what are normal costs for a 2nd grade science program, new teachers vs. experienced teachers, are critical. Other issues such as costs to operate older buildings vs. newer buildings, personnel, negotiations, increases in medical benefits should be considered. Financial issues involving technology, capital expenditures, and school construction are essential for a solid understanding.

Once the public has a thorough knowledge of the public education funding system, they will be better prepared to review cost  comparisons within their district and among other districts. There are so many factors that influence a district’s spending that an administrator with ten plus years of experience is still learning.

With the profusion of cyber charter schools in various parts of the Commonwealth, questions are now being raised about how they relate to the Charter School Act and other school code laws and regulations.

An applicant seeking to operate a charter school in Pennsylvania must submit a completed application to the board of school directors in which the school is located. The application must be submitted on or before November 15 of the year before the school year during which the applicant plans to open the school. The application requires detailed answers to seventeen major points regarding the proposed school. Failure to adequately address these items can provide school districts with cause to deny the application. Listed below are several matters that raise questions about the operation of  a “cyber charter school” within your school district:

• Applicability - did the charter school law contemplate electronic schools? Throughout the law there are references to location and facilities. An argument may be made that “cyber charter schools” do not meet the criteria of “opening schools,” but a method of delivering curriculum by electronic means.

• Location - Charter Schools are required to submit an application “. . .to the local board of school directors of the district where the charter school will be located. In absence of a specific school location, an argument can be made that the school is located at the address of the applicant. Is the applicant located in the school district? If not, this is the wrong district in which to seek a charter.”

• Compulsory Attendance  - Pennsylvania resident children are required to attend school from the age of entry (8 years old) until the age of 17. In lieu of attending a school, school age children can satisfy compulsory attendance requirements by; attending a private trade or business school, a church run school, a day or boarding school, or home schooling. With the exception of home schooling, the other options require that students “attend” school. This requirement can be differentiated from merely taking classes that are required by the State Board of Education. Districts can make plausible and defensible arguments that cyber charter schools do not meet these requirements.

• Home School Funds - The charter school law very explicitly prohibits the use of funds to provide home school programs. “No funds allocated or disbursed under this article shall be used to directly support instruction pursuant to section 1327.1 (Home Education Program). Some Cyber Charter Schools promote their schools as attractive to parents who are home schooling their children. The application of the act to promote home schooling is clearly at odds with the intent of the law. This limitation in the law may be an important issue in looking at funding for Cyber Charter Schools.

A more comprehensive look at this issue is available from the Pennsylvania School Boards Association.