Will There Be A Leadership
Crisis in 2003?
by Dr. Gaylord Tryon, SAI Executive Director
Yes, Iowa could be experiencing a leadership
crisis in the year 2003 if the results of our recent survey hold true. Complete survey report.
Top
Employee Information:
What's Private and What Isn't
(with some ramblings thrown in for free!)
by Kathy Lee Collins, J.D., SAI Director of Legal Services
The Iowa Supreme Court recently handed down a new decision interpreting
the Iowa Public Records Law, chapter 22. The case involved public access
to sick leave records of public employees by name, gender, birth date, and
address.
The Cedar Rapids Gazette had sought to know what the employees of the City of Cedar Rapids had been compensated for, in terms of sick leave, and the amount of leave taken by each individual employee. AFSCME, the union representing many of the workers, went to court to block the turnover of this information. The district court judge "split the baby," giving the Gazette reporter the sick leave information, but only on an aggregate or collected basis. The newspaper appealed.
The Iowa Supreme Court held that the district court was on the right track but hadn't gone far enough. The Court ordered that the Gazette was entitled to "individualized payroll information concerning sick leave pay and other benefits, including dates taken and hours accrued" revealed by the name of the employee. They clarified that they aren't talking about medical information within the requests for leave forms as that would violate the employees' confidentiality in their medical records. "So long as the information disclosed does not reveal personal medical conditions or professional evaluations, the public has the right to examine" the employee's compensation record, including days off and the reason for them.
At the same time, however, the Court found that releasing these records to include employees' "addresses, birth dates and gender" is not required by the law. I have long wondered whether public employees' addresses and phone numbers were "public information," especially when some folks take the trouble to have unlisted numbers. I assumed they were because there's no specific exemption for them in Chapter 22. Now we know. Employees' addresses are NOT public information. If someone wants to get in touch with a public employee in your district, they can write or call them at school. The Court's rationale was that giving out this information does not advance the purposes of the public records law: to enlighten the public about the operation or activities of the government. I couldn't help chuckling when Justice Newman favorably quoted the Firefighters Union, one of the Amici ("friends of the court") who had suggested at oral arguments, "Public employees deal with people who don't necessarily have the same boundaries as the people sitting in this courtroom." Amen.
Consider yourselves enlightened. Pass the word to your board secretaries and business managers; they are often the ones receiving these requests. In fact, pass the word to all of your staff; there may be a silver lining in this cloud. This decision may affect some staff members' behavior in a positive way. If all employees' sick leave usage and totals were printed in the local newspaper, it might cause some of them to be a bit more judicious about using their time. (Sometimes I think our employees are no different from our students: If we give them 10 days a year, there will be a significant number of them who will take all 10 "because they're there.") Maybe calling up the local media and offering this information would be a good idea!
==================================================================
On a separate front, October was a month where "restraint" was an issue in more than one school district. I received several calls in rapid succession questioning whether it is flat out illegal to restrain students. In each case the inquiry involved a special education student whose behavior was so out of control as to threaten the safety of the student, staff, or others in the classroom.
The first place I looked was the D.E. rules. When I was at the Department of Education we adopted a (short) chapter of rules to implement the corporal punishment law. It primarily describes the limitations on detention sites (in terms of size, light, air) and duration ("reasonable," of course), but there is one subrule that deals with the issue of "Physical confinement and detention." That rule reads, "Material restraints applied to the person are not used to effect confinement." (281 Ia. Admin. Code 103.6) In theory, if this rule were violated it would mean the state law on corporal punishment would be violated as well.
Then I tried to reach a couple of people I would regard as "experts" in this area. Coincidentally they were doing an ICN training session on "Critical Issues in Providing Appropriate Programs for Students with Significant Behavioral Needs." One of those "critical issues" was physical restraint of students. Dr. Carl Smith at Drake University, one of the primary speakers, shared his background materials with me.
I have not had a chance to read all of the cases cited in the (several) articles and materials he gave me on the subject (I will as soon as I can), but I can say that a quick review of the literature indicates that there is NO LAW blanketly prohibiting restraining students. The court or state/federal education department cases mentioned in the articles turned, to a great extent, on what the purpose of the restraint was. Specifically, if a child were restrained (by being placed in a padded room, tied to a chair, or held by a trained individual so that the child's movement was significantly curtailed, for example) because the child could be significantly or seriously dangerous to himself or others, it was generally permissible (in other words, not "unreasonable") to use the restraint. If, on the other hand, such tactics or methods were used as punishment for the student's behavior, or the "restraint" was really appalling or excessive, the school was far less likely to be forgiven.
Most of what I read made sense, but some of it angered me. One author included "time outs" in a category of "aversive" discipline. I really wanted to take that author (a professor or grad student somewhere, no doubt) and drag him/her out to some of your classrooms. We'd see how long they look down their noses at our temporarily holding a screaming, biting, kicking, spitting child so s/he can't move. I know there are some folks out there who don't always use the best judgment, but thank goodness the courts and other decision-makers are recognizing the difference between restraint for safety and restraint for discipline.
SAI Sets Legislative Platform for 2000
Session
by Dr. Marcus Haack, SAI Associate Executive Director
In an effort to "stay ahead of the game," the SAI Representative
Council adopted the legislative platform for the 2000 legislative session
at its October meeting. Space doesn't permit including all items in the
proposal, however here are some of the main items.
IPERS Improvements
Increasing the death benefit for the beneficiaries of active members who die prior to retirement.
Restoring the three-year final average salary for all employees, effective Jan. 1, 2000.
In addition to the above-mentioned high priority issues, SAI will support the following:
School Funding Issues
Budget Guarantee and On-Time Funding: Last year the legislature passed HF 147 which included a 100% budget guarantee for the 1999-2000 school year. In addition, the bill provided $4 million for on-time funding for districts experiencing increasing enrollments. The legislature needs to once again assure that no school districts suffer reduced budgets during the 2000-2001 school year.
Increased Allowable Growth: The major question facing the legislature regarding school funding is one of adequacy. In 1999 the legislature passed HF 146 which set allowable growth for 2000-2001 at 4% (approximately a $61 million increase). A 4% allowable growth does not meet the "adequacy test" at a time when school districts are being required to add programs, meet new state mandates, and serve a broader set of student needs.
Full Funding of the State Portion of the Instructional Support Program: Last year HF 718 died in the House Ways and Means Committee. It would have added $9.3 million in state aid to the instructional support program. Legislation needs to be signed into law which would restore the state's commitment to its share of instructional support funding.
Supplementary Weighting: HF 684, which would have responded to the Attorney General's opinion (7/98) and would have clarified district-to-community college course sharing and school district funding for alternative high schools and programs, died in the House Appropriations Committee. The legislature needs to clarify and improve supplementary weighting in order for schools to provide services to students whose educational needs dictate placement in a setting other than the traditional classroom.
Class Size Reduction Funding: SAI supports continued/increased funding under HF 743, Class Size Reduction/Early Intervention. This bill, which passed during the 1999 session, provides funding for school districts to reduce class sizes in grades K-3 to a state goal of 17 students to every one teacher. It also permits school districts the flexibility to use the funding to support reading programs. Funding, however, should allow for maximum local control in determining how funds will be utilized.
Transportation Funding: Last year HF 685 died in the House Appropriations Committee. This bill, which would have reimbursed districts with transportation costs exceeding the state average by 150%, needs to be reintroduced and passed in order to assist districts with excessive transportation costs.
Special Education Funding: Due to high costs of provided special education services and the resulting budget deficits that school districts are experiencing, the legislature needs to provide increased levels of special education funding. Last year SF 459 (Education Property Tax Relief) was passed and signed by the governor. It raised the foundation level for special education from 79% to 87.5%, however, the state needs to provide additional assistance to local school districts in order to eliminate all special education deficit spending.
Phase III: Phase III funding as part of the Educational Excellence Program continues to be an important and major source of funding for school districts engaged in school improvement, professional development and curriculum development. SAI strongly supports continued funding of Phase III and discourages the diversion of Phase III funds to other educational programs and projects.
Infrastructure: Many school districts are experiencing deterioration of school facilities. The legislature needs to address this issue prior to the problem reaching crisis proportions by: (a) eliminating the 60% super majority for passing bond issues and replacing it with a simple majority, and (b) providing state assistance to local districts for school repair, renovation and construction.
HF 2272 Assistance: As schools work toward meeting the standards, assessment and reporting requirements of HF 2272, there is a need for supplemental funding to support technical assistance and to provide additional staff time at the local district level.
For complete and up-to-date information on SAI's legislative activity
prior to, and during, the 2000 legislative session, check out the SAI web
page and sign up for the SAI listserve.
Top
Comprised of 38 members with representation from higher education, AEAs, SAI, IASB, ISEA, DE, Board of Educational Examiners, and private business, the committee, so far, has met for two full days of work. The first was devoted to answering questions that were designed to lead to the formation of a rationale and to core beliefs. Those two critical items are now in their third revision. As soon as they are finalized I will share them.
The second day was structured to review current thinking on what type of leadership will be needed for the 21st century. The committee divided into groups and discussed readings from a book called "Leader of the Future" edited by Hesselbein, Goldsmith, & Beckhard. Common themes established by each group were recorded and will be used for further discussion.
The final task of the second day was to examine the process and format for holding Community Conversations in each AEA district. It is hoped the conversations will meet these goals:
Each AEA has a contact person to organize the conversations. They are tentatively
scheduled to take place between Nov. 1 and Dec. 15.
We encourage you, if you are contacted, to attend. It is imperative that the voices of practicing administrators be heard during these discussions! We want to be sure that community stakeholders know the challenges you face day to day. A moderator will facilitate the discussions, and a video is being produced to lay a foundation of information on which to base discussion.
We will periodically update you on the progress of the committee and its work. The final recommendations are due by September 2000.
Along this same line on Oct. 14, Marc Haack, Harold Overmann and I attended a presentation at the University of Northern Iowa on Portfolio Assessment for Minnesota Administrators and ISLIC (Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium's Standards for School Leaders) Assessment for Missouri Principals - two very different approaches to accountability.
In Minnesota candidates may pursue licensure either in a non-degree licensure program or as an extension of an Ed.D. or Ph.D. degree program. Both require a "demonstration of the attainment of knowledge, skills, and abilities" thus the portfolio. The candidate presents the portfolio before a review board made up of practitioners from the field and university personnel.
In Missouri candidates for licensure must pass a six-hour written test called School Leaders Licensure Assessment which is administered by Educational Testing Service and is given three times a year. The six hour written test is composed of vignettes, case studies, and in-basket activities. It is scored by use of a rubric of possible answers.
It is interesting to note that both states' assessments address a K-12 knowledge base rather than the usual secondary, elementary and middle. These examples stirred a great deal of discussion from all Iowa educators in attendance.
Iowa's new school improvement and accountability laws raise the expectations for reporting on student achievement results to your community.
The Iowa School Public Relations Association is preparing a complete guide to help school administrators create annual reports that build community understanding. The guide will be available Jan. 1. Consider the tips below as a starting point.
Be ready for comparisons and report on what people want to know.
No matter how hard you try to avoid it or how much you talk about why comparisons
aren't accurate, most likely there will be a story in your local media which
compares your district to other districts. Report on other factors such
as parent involvement, student readiness to learn, mobility rate or participation
in activities, to help tell the whole story of achievement in your district.
Remember that educators and the public sometimes have different priorities.
Ask people in your community what counts to them, then report on those indicators.
Communicate with focus.
Work with your administrative team and school improvement committee to determine
one or two things you want people to remember about your school's data.
Frame your remarks around these things. Draw your answers to questions back
to these issues. Make sure they are prominent in the materials produced
to explain your school's progress.
Get ahead of the game.
Don't wait for a reporter to come calling and find yourself scurrying to
analyze and interpret your results to the media and community. Be sure your
district is ready to respond.
Avoid jargon and keep it simple.
Using jargon is the quickest way to confuse people and sabotage your communication
efforts. The technical nature of testing and assessments often makes it
difficult for educators to avoid jargon.
Relate your results back to your school improvement plan.
You and your community should be able to see a direct correlation between
what you've set as targets in your improvement plan and your school's results.
If your improvement goals targeted math and you see the biggest improvement
in math, tout it! You did what you said you were going to do and that's
the purpose of your school improvement plan.
Build credibility.
Tell the good, the bad and the ugly. If you only tell the good news, your
messages will soon lose credibility. If you are the first one to tell your
community where your weak areas are and then describe how you plan to address
them, your community will be more understanding.
Take time to explain.
Help people understand how to use the information. If you don't provide
the context and meaning for the data, someone else will, even if that person
knows little or nothing about the real issues surrounding assessment reports.
Go direct to your most important audiences.
Don't rely on a printed report or the media to portray your results to your
most important and influential audiences-there is too much risk of misunderstanding.
Ensure that your district's key spokesperson (the superintendent, an assessment
expert or a board spokesperson) arranges face-to-face meetings with key
groups, such as the school improvement committee, business leaders, parent
groups or others.
Share responsibility.
If your results aren't what you expect or want, tell what you're doing about
it. Then, get others involved.
Don't hide the fact that your district-or a building in the district-may not have met your expectations. Let people know that the leadership of the school district isn't satisfied and tell them what you will do to address weaknesses. Be sure to share ways your community can help so that improved results are seen next time.
Prepare the media.
Provide background on assessments well before results are released. Brief
the media on the reporting requirements of the law, your district's standards
and assessment system and how they were developed. Recommend that reporters
contact testing and assessment experts, either on your own staff, with the
AEA, or another source.