Reflecting
Back
by Dr. Gaylord Tryon, SAI Executive Director
We were saddened this month to learn
of the passing of Robert Fitzsimmons, a former SAI staff member.
Fitz died of cancer in his hometown of Boone, Iowa, on Aug. 26,
2000, at the age of 75.
Fitz started his career in school administration as high school
principal in Mexico, Mo. From there he moved to Cedar Rapids and
served as principal at Washington High School from 1962-67. Fitz
was appointed as principal of Kennedy High School when the building
first opened in 1967. After leaving Cedar Rapids in 1970, Fitz
went to work for NASSP as Director of Student Activities.
In 1972, Fitz was appointed executive director of the Iowa Association
of Secondary School principals (succeeding Del Battrick). In 1983,
the Iowa Association of Secondary School Principals merged with
the Iowa Association of Elementary and Middle School Principals
to form the Educational Administrators of Iowa (EAI). Fitz served
as associate executive director of EAI from 1983-87. On Sept.
1, 1987, the Educational Administrators of Iowa (building principals)
merged with the Iowa Association of School Administrators (superintendents)
to form the School Administrators of Iowa. Fitz served as Coordinator
of Professional Services for SAI from Sept. 1, 1987, until his
retirement on June 30, 1991.
The School Administrators of Iowa is an organization that didn't
just happen over- night. A lot of people have been a part of the
history of SAI. Robert Fitzsimmons is one of those individuals.
In remembrance of Fitz, we would like to establish a brick with
his name that will be placed in our new office building. If you
would like to contribute (an amount of your choice), please make
the check payable to SAI-Robert Fitzsimmons Memorial. Send it
to the SAI office on or before Oct. 30, 2000.
Speaking of people being involved in the history of SAI, I would
be remiss if I did not mention several other individuals.
As I have mentioned in the past, SAI is the successor of three
former organizations-each of which first started in the early
1970s when the administrators dissolved their relationship with
the ISEA.
The Iowa Association of School Administrators was the first group
to leave the ISEA (July 1, 1970). Their first full-time executive
director was Boyd Shannon, long-time superintendent at Monticello.
He was succeeded by Lyle Kehm, superintendent at Urbandale, on
July 1, 1974. E. Kelly Schlapkohl, former superintendent at Washington,
took over the helm in 1984 and served as executive director of
IASA until the merger with EAI in 1987. Kelly served as associate
executive director of SAI until his retirement in December of
1993.
Following is a list of superintendents who served as presidents
of IASA (starting with their first year as an independent organization):
1970-71, Bill Diedrichsen, Tipton
1971-72, Alvin Leuthauser, Cresco
1972-73, Ken Sand, Shenandoah
1973-74, Vance Stead, Le Mars
1974-75, Keith O'Connell, Turkey Valley
1975-76, Orville Frazier, Harlan
1976-77, R. Wesley Carlson, Humboldt
1977-78, Dale Mulford, Grundy Center
1978-79, James Poulter, Anamosa
1979-80, L. James Doud, Harris-Lake Park
1980-81, Bill Hutchison, Hartley
1981-82, Jim Robinson, Cedar Falls
1982-83, Merrit Parsons, Pleasant Valley
1983-84, Mel Grell, Sioux City
1984-85, Perry Uhl, Roland-Story City
1985-86, Wayne Drexler, Western Dubuque
1986-87, Bill Lepley, Council Bluffs
The Iowa Association of Secondary School Principals became an
independent association on July 1, 1971. Delmer H. Battrick was
the executive secretary. Robert Fitzsimmons assumed the role of
executive director on July 1, 1972, and served in that capacity
until IASSP merged with the Iowa Association of Elementary and
Middle School Principals on July 1, 1983. Following is a list
of principals who served as presidents of IASSP:
1971-72, Ernie Doeringsfeld, Urbandale H.S.
1972-73, Robert Schmidt, Jefferson H.S.
1973-74, Lacey Spriggs, Brody J.H. Des Moines
1974-75, Don Gunderson, Red Oak H.S.
1975-76, Tom Drake, South Tama J.H., Toledo
1976-77, Ken Lemke, Franklin J.H., Cedar Rapids
1977-78, Paul Olson, Forest City H.S.
1978-79, Les Huth, Webster City H.S.
1979-80, Don Carlson, Ames J.H.
1980-82, Ken Steine, College Community H.S. (served as president
for two years: 1980-81 and 1981-82)
1982-83, John Corkery, Linn-Mar J.H.
The Iowa Association of Elementary School Principals (name changed
to include "Middle" in later years) left the ISEA on
July 1, 1973. Gaylord Tryon, former elementary school principal
in Ames, was appointed executive director. Following is a list
of elementary principals who served as presidents of IAESP:
1973-74, John Fritz, Mason City
1974-75, Jim Doud, Price Lab School, Cedar Falls
1975-76, Morris Graber, Sioux City
1976-77, Roger Swanson, MFL
1977-78, Ron Meals, Ames
1978-79, Gene Beilke, Marshalltown
1979-80, Roger Bohning, Roland-Story City
1980-81, Ron Spurlin, Johnston
1981-82, Bill Hall, Dubuque
1982-83, Don Black, Newton
IASSP and IAESP merged on July 1, 1983, to form the Educational
Administrators of Iowa. Gaylord Tryon was appointed executive
director; Robert Fitzsimmons was appointed associate executive
director. Following is a list of individuals who served as presidents
of EAI:
1983-84, Bob Blasi, high school principal, Glenwood
1984-85, David Brauhn, elementary principal, College Community
1985-86, Ken Lemke, junior high principal, Cedar Rapids
1986-87, Jim Deignan, high school principal, Sioux City
On Sept. 1, 1987, SAI came into being with the merger of EAI and
IASA. Gaylord Tryon was appointed executive director. Kelly Schlapkohl
and Robert Fitzsimmons were appointed associate executive directors.
Robert Fitzsimmons assumed the role of Coordinator of Professional
Services in 1988. Following is a list of individuals who served
as presidents of SAI:
1987-88, Sandra Lawrence, elementary principal, Iowa City
1988-89, Dale Grabinski, superintendent, West Des Moines
1989-90, Bill Tyne, high school principal, Storm Lake
1990-91, John Mandernach, middle school principal, Le Mars
1991-92, Don Gunderson, superintendent, Dike
1992-93, Dom Grasso, high school principal, Oelwein
1993-94, Diane Weitz, elementary principal, Council Bluffs
1994-95, Jim Blietz, chief administrator, AEA 13, Council Bluffs
1995-96, Cheryl Jensen, elementary principal, Ames
1996-97, Jim Sogard, high school principal, Eldora-New Providence
1997-98, Tom Williams, superintendent, Muscatine
1998-99, Steve Fuglsang, elementary principal, Camanche
1999-00, Gerald Waugh, superintendent, Grundy Center
2000-01, Phil Hintz, superintendent, Newton
We are extremely grateful for all the work and leadership provided
by the individuals listed above. Having known and worked with
each one of them, I can attest to their dedication to school administration
and to their commitment to the boys and girls we serve on a daily
basis.
Top
More Details
on 'That F.E.R.P.A. Case About Kids Grading Papers'
by Kathy Lee Collins, J.D., SAI Director of Legal Services
Note: The U.S. Supreme Court
reversed this decision. Consult the author or your school's attorney
for further details.
The phone hasn't stopped ringing since I mentioned
the 10th Circuit's decision (Falvo v. Owasso Indep. Sch. Dist.
No. I-011) at the August Conference. If you weren't there,
I forgive you, but listen up. You'll want to pay attention to
this one.
At issue in Oklahoma was the practice by some teachers of asking
kids in the class to swap papers then reading the correct answers
and letting the kids correct each others' papers, and using students
as "couriers" to hand back graded tests or papers after
they have been recorded in the grade books. The Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals (not our circuit; we're in the 8th) concluded
that this time-honored practice violates the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) because the grade on an individual
assignment is an "education record," and students are
not among the persons who can have access to other students' grades
by statute.
In deciding this case this way, the appellate court overturned
a lower court decision to the contrary, and rejected the United
States Department of Education's opinion, issued in a letter several
years ago, that said the practice was not a violation of the law
because the individual grades weren't "education records"
due to the fact that the papers weren't "maintained"
by the school. The judges said, in effect, that doesn't matter
because the GRADES on them are "maintained" by the teachers
in their grade books. Therefore, the score and the grade are confidential
and protected by FERPA.
Let me make a few things clearer, if I can.
First, the decision was about students grading each others' papers;
it was not about adult volunteer teachers' aides or "lay
readers" as they used to be called, doing the same thing.
If those of you using such volunteers want to really dot your
i's and cross your t's, you will amend your board policy on student
records. The IASB sample ("Student Records Access")
which the majority of schools have probably adopted verbatim,
states that non-consensual disclosure can be made "to school
officials within the school district and AEA personnel whom the
superintendent has determined to have a legitimate educational
interest, including, but not limited to, board members, employees,
school attorney, auditor, health professionals, and individuals
serving on official school committees." My suggestion, to
clarify expressly that adult volunteers helping teachers grade
students' work have a "legitimate educational interest,"
is to mention them specifically in your board policy.
(Note: There is a special paragraph later in the sample devoted
to access to special education students' records that is
more prescriptive, requiring the superintendent to "keep
a list of individuals and their positions who are authorized to
view a special education student's records without the permission
of the parents or the eligible student." I.D.E.A.'s requirement
is, therefore, far more specific than FERPA's and requires us
to name names in addition to identifying positions.)
Second, I don't think this ruling affects the legality or wisdom
of student editing teams, a practice that has apparently sprung
up since I was teaching, whereby a student writes a paper and
uses a partner or group of classmates to review and discuss the
paper with an eye toward improving it. The assignment hasn't been
graded yet, so there is no "educational record" at issue.
If it's an editing process after the paper is graded, that
would change my advice, at least, so long as the grade or score
is on the paper.
However, using a student to record grades in the grade book or
into a computer would probably violate the law in the same way
as the swap-papers-and-let's-grade-them practice at issue in Falvo.
I've also been asked if certain practices would help us "get
around" this ruling, and all I can do here is offer my best
guess.
Q: What if students were to put an identification number
on their paper instead of their name? Assuming no one but the
teacher knows who has what number, would that get us past the
problem of revealing student scores and grades to other students?
A: It has possibilities, but I can see that the teacher would
have to collect all papers, shuffle them pretty well, redistribute
them randomly and hope that no student gets his/her own paper
back. This would be more likely to work in larger classes than
smaller ones where students may know one another's handwriting.
Q: Could we ask parents to waive their and their child's
right to student record confidentiality to allow in-class correcting?
A: I'm not sure. But I do know that if one or a handful of students'
parents won't sign a waiver, your teachers are arguably wasting
these students' time while the teacher and the rest of the class
corrects everyone else's papers. Not to mention possibly making
them feel ostracized because their parents wouldn't waive their
right to educational records privacy. Doesn't sound like a very
good option to me.
Q: If we want to be able to use student "couriers"
to hand back papers, could we staple the papers so the grade isn't
revealed and write the student's name on the outside?
A: Sounds like a possibility. I would still ask my couriers not
to peek. And no magic marker grades on the papers; they bleed
through. Then time this alternative to see if it's really faster
than the teacher just handing back the assignments.
Q: What if students just corrected the assignments and the
teacher didn't identify what grade each score would receive?
A: I believe this would violate the same principle. Scores are,
in some cases, tantamount to grades. I wouldn't want to bet the
farm on this one.
Q: Could we amend our categories of persons who have a legitimate
educational interest to include "students grading each other's
papers" in the board policy?
A: Very clever! But no, I don't think Congress, the U.S. Department
of Ed., or the courts would consider an exception that makes mincemeat
of the rule to be appropriate. I appreciate the legal creativity
behind this suggestion, however. Nice try!
It is true that this is only one circuit court's decision, and
not our circuit's to boot, but my assessment is that this court
analyzed the law correctly, whether we like it or not, and we're
not apt to get a different result in the Eighth Circuit. I think
the more likely avenue out from under this ruling is to convince
Congress that they should amend FERPA to add some kind of exception
for individual assignments graded by students in class. On the
other hand, I'm told that this is an educational practice that
should be put to rest anyway; that it's unfair and embarrassing
for a number of students. It's hard to disagree with that assessment.
But the old English teacher in me just reeled when I read this
ruling, thinking back on six sections of every-Friday 20-word
spelling tests, 30-word vocabulary tests, and bi-weekly pop quizzes.
The thought of taking all those papers home to correct, on top
of the six sections of themes, character sketches, poetry, book
reports, research papers, et cetera, et cetera . . . Well, it's
enough to make a teacher want to get out and go to law school,
isn't it?
Top
Teacher Compensation: A Look
into the Crystal Ball
by Dr. Marcus Haack, SAI Associate Executive Director
Every year about this time we are inundated with information
about the priority issues the Iowa legislature will be addressing
during the upcoming session. This year all eyes and ears are on
the one BIG issue that everyone's talking about: teacher compensation.
As I compare this fall's conversations to those of previous legislative
sessions, there appears to be one major difference. This year
the leaders in BOTH parties agree that something needs to be done,
and done now.
Does that mean increased teacher compensation is a "shoo-in"
during the 2001 session? Hardly! There are no fewer than several
hundred details that need to be addressed and resolved. However,
I get a feeling that most everyone agrees this is one issue we
can't afford to ignore. On the other hand, given the $250-300
million price tag associated with full implementation of the compensation
plan, some would say we can't afford it. Period!
During the past couple of weeks I've had an opportunity to sit
in on three separate meetings at which Governor Vilsack spoke
passionately about the need to address the teacher pay problem.
One of those meetings was a special invitation to the SAI staff
to meet in his office at the Capitol so he could lay out his agenda
and persuade us to join the crusade.
A quick look at the evidence demonstrates the need to do something
soon. With increasing frequency, you folks in the field are having
a harder time filling vacancies with high- quality teacher candidates.
In some cases you're having a hard time finding anyone to fill
positions, regardless of quality. More and more beginning teachers
are leaving the profession within a few years of starting their
careers. Increasing numbers of Iowa-trained teachers are going
to other states where compensation packages are more attractive.
Iowa's average teacher pay keeps sliding further and further behind
other states. And the list goes on.
As it stands right now there are two concrete proposals for addressing
the compensation problem: one is commonly referred to as the Pomerantz
plan (Republican) and the other is known as the Forsyth plan (Democratic).
Now it would be pretty easy for the politicians to go into the
2001 session maintaining the plan of their respective party. It
makes good fuel for "electioneering" as the November
general election draws near. It also provides legislators and
elected officials with an easy out if nothing comes of the proposals.
You can hear it now, "Well, I fully supported the (take your
pick) plan, but the folks on the other side of the aisle
wouldn't compromise." After all, that's what often happens.
I sense a difference this year, however. In our meeting with the
governor, he made it abundantly clear that it is not acceptable
to enter the 2001 legislative session with two plans. The compensation
issue is so important to the state in so many ways, that agreements
have to be forged prior to the session so that the legislature
is considering one plan, and one plan only. In actuality both
plans are very similar anyway.
The governor is going to spend a lot of energy and political capital
on this one item over the next few months. He appears ready to
take whatever heat may come from an expensive plan that will require
realignment of state funds (since there isn't the will or the
ability to fund the plan with new resources). He's reaching out
to us, as school leaders, to assist him in the process. He's asking
us to join him in taking the lead, speaking out on the pay issue,
educating people in our communities across the state about the
critical nature of the teaching profession in Iowa.
We can take up the cause with the governor (and the legislative
leadership) or we can allow the conversation to become bogged
down in the yet undetermined details. It's up to us. I'm pretty
sure I know where Iowa's educational leaders will be in this debate.
The stakes are much too high to derail the train before it's even
left the station.
Top
Administrators Beware!
by Dr. Elaine Smith-Bright, SAI Director of Professional Development
WARNING: Use of poor procedures in the management of student
activity funds can be hazardous to your professional health. Take
all recommended precautions!
Does that warning seem a bit strong? Yes, it does. But when it
comes to handling public dollars, you must understand the importance
of following specific rules. Student activity funds have a tendency
to bring weakness to the knees of many administrators and business
managers and cause auditors to sharpen their pencils. Just a look
at the annual audit report of most districts identifies possibly
hundreds or thousands of dollars that flow through the district
which are not directly under the control of a business manager.
With this in mind, SAI has joined with IASBO (Iowa Association
of School Business Officials) to provide a special one-day workshop
on the why's and how's of managing activity accounts.
I have to laugh, though, after giving all these warnings. When
I look back on my early years (way too long ago to mention how
many) in public schools, I shudder at some of the practices we
ignorantly, but with sincere honesty, followed in collecting and
storing receipts. I remember, as an elementary teacher, I used
to collect the book order money for my students' little paperbacks
and just put it in an envelope in my desk until I sent it off.
I was the accountant, checks and balances person, and purchasing
and receiving agent all-in-one.
In my first year as a middle level principal, naturally I found
I was responsible for everything involving the receipts for game
nights. I would pick up a cash box from the central office, make
sure I had students to collect entrance fees, take cash out of
the receipts to pay the time clock worker, make change for the
concession stand, and give the officials their checks. As I left
for the night I would store the money in a locked file cabinet
or, if we were off-site, put it in the trunk of my car until the
next morning when I turned it back into the central office. Thank
goodness I was trustworthy, and so were those I worked with. And
of course very soon, as the district grew, new procedures were
instituted to assure everything was handled in a much more accountable
fashion. I was sharing all of this with a CPA from the accounting
firm that we have lined up to speak at the workshop, and it just
didn't surprise her at all.
We are very pleased to have speakers coming from the Nolte, Cornman
& Johnson accounting firm in Newton to do a presentation on
what they look for in a school district audit. They are well-versed
in the fine points of school activity accounts. In fact, they
will be taking a break from their audit of a metro area district
to come and share with us that day.
Do you know the legal requirements or issues that arise over student
funds? For instance, do booster clubs need to be incorporated?
It certainly seems like everything we do in administration has
some legal connotation, so why would student funds be any different?
Drew Bracken from the Ahlers Law Firm will be on hand to cover
that type of question, and many others related to those specific
funds. And no seminar on working with public dollars would be
complete without a discussion of liability. It's important to
know what should be included in a district's coverage, and particularly
what coverage should be in place for those who directly handle
activity accounts or funds. Your school secretary comes to mind
since s/he is often the "do everything" person besides
you. John Seefeld, an agent from Jester Insurance Services will
be present to review insurance concerns.
To conclude the day we will have practitioners (representing small-,
medium- and large-sized districts) delineate the internal procedures
they use to direct, account for, and regulate the handling of
their school activity funds. They'll also share what training
is provided for them and any of their staff members, plus what
policies help govern this area in their districts. Let's also
not forget about looking at the PTAs, PTOs, Booster Clubs, petty
cash, cash change boxes and other fund raising projects or groups
that may not directly impact your accounting funds, but who may
very well impact your need for monitoring. Not one of us wants
to deal with a situation like this headline that was in the October
1999 issue of the Des Moines Register, "Former softball leader
admits stealing."
We're excited to be teaming with IASBO for this workshop. They
have a tradition of providing quality support and information
to school business officials in all areas of finance. Any administrator
or school personnel directly or indirectly associated with student
activity management should find this a "must attend"
workshop. It is scheduled for Wed., Oct. 25 at the Learning Resource
Center in West Des Moines. Brochures have gone out, so watch your
mail.
If enough studies show the same result, you begin to believe
it. Study after study shows that parent involvement improves student
achievement. Surveys of parents show that most families want to
be able to guide and support their children in their schooling,
but they lack enough information from the school on how to do
it. The ball is clearly in our court. And with all that we have
to accomplish in school improvement, how can we hope to do it
without the support and involvement of parents?
According to the work of well-known researcher Joyce Epstein of
the National Network of Partnership Schools at Johns Hopkins University,
there are six ways (or "types") that schools and families/communities
can partner together to get results:
Type 1-Parenting: Assisting families with parenting and child-rearing skills, understanding child development, and setting up the home environment so that learning can be supported. While most schools have probably experimented with the traditional "parenting class," Epstein challenges us to go further by using non-traditional methods to get families to pay attention. She suggests holding a parenting meeting at "break time" at the local factory or other major employer in the community or offering to send out a "recap" of the meeting on paper or through a videotape for parents who couldn't make it.
Type 2-Communicating: Designing effective forms of school-to-home communication and home-to-school communication. Communication about learning shouldn't be limited to the annual progress report. In fact, don't expect too much from it in the way of understanding if it is the one and only time you communicate this year about the status of learning district-wide. Publications are one-way (which means you never really know how the receiver felt about it) and offer very little in the way of context. Bar none, the best communication is one-on-one. Now that the annual progress report is out, how about making visits to civic groups? What about holding a "coffee on the superintendent" time (as Larry Hill, superintendent at North Iowa Community Schools does) where community members and parents alike can meet with you at the local coffee shop to chat informally about the status of learning in your district.
Type 3-Volunteering: Recruiting and organizing parent help and support. Traditionally, schools have looked to parents for help in raising funds for uniforms and taking tickets at the game. Some schools are taking volunteering a step further, though, by getting parents into the classroom. Developing a more sophisticated volunteer program that gets results for student achievement might mean surveying parents to learn about their available talents, time and interests and creating a database that's accessible by all.
Type 4-Learning at Home: Providing information and ideas to families about how to help students at home. With the implementation of standards and benchmarks, ideally, the objectives for learning have never been easier for students, teachers and parents alike to understand. There are lots of ways to help students get involved at home. What about creating a regular schedule of homework that requires students to discuss and interact with family members (or other important people in the child's life, it doesn't have to be the parent) about what they are learning in class? Or creating calendars with activities for parents and students to do at home or in the community to accompany each activity?
Type 5-Decision-Making: Including parents and community in school decision making in appropriate ways. Although districts have always been required to have a "280.12/18" advisory committee, the new school improvement law (HF 2272) asks schools to expand the role of community/parent advisors a step further. District advisory committees are a perfect way to get a small group of "lay people" on board with what you are trying to accomplish for kids with your school improvement goals. Done well, this group can be "key opinion leaders" out in the community about what's happening with learning at your district.
Type 6-Collaborating with Community: Identifying and integrating
resources and services from the community to strengthen school
programs, family practices, and student development. Let's
face it, with declining enrollment and dwindling dollars, we can't
give kids the learning opportunities they need without tapping
into the resources of the community and businesses. From the community/business
perspective, helping the school produce world-class, high achieving
graduates has benefits-future workers and responsible citizens.
Epstein's research shows that when schools partner with their
communities, there are more than enough resources to go around.
Interested in getting more practical examples of how schools and
families/communities can partner and get results? Contact High
School Principal Bob Miller at Forest City Community Schools at
641-585-2324 or by e-mail at bmiller@forestcity.k12.ia.us. Miller,
along with six other principals in Area Two, received training
from Epstein herself at Johns Hopkins University and have come
home to put her ideas into practice.