Potpourri
by Dr. Gaylord Tryon, SAI Executive Director
IPERS
The Legislative Interim Committee on Public Retirement Systems
met on December 16, 1999, to finalize their recommendations to
the full legislature. Following is the result of their deliberations.
A. Increase the cost of living adjustment (COLA) for members who
retired prior to July 1, 1990, from 80 % of the Consumer Price
Index to 100 %-but retaining a maximum increase of 3 % above the
preceding year. (Note: No additional cost to the IPERS fund.)
[Approved by Legislative Interim Committee.]
B. Capping the Favorable Experience Dividend (FED) at 10 years.
(Note: No additional cost to the IPERS fund.) [Approved unanimously
by Committee.]
C. Moving to the Rule of 85. (Note: Considered as a "significant"
cost item.) [Disapproved, but favored by Senators on the Committee.]
D. Increasing the death benefit for the beneficiaries of those
active members who die before retirement. (Considered a "modest"
cost item. Typically, there are about 250 active members [out
of an estimated 150,000 active members] who die prior to retirement
each year.) [Approved unanimously.]
E. Eliminating the "computed year" for school employees.
(No cost to the IPERS fund.) [Deferred--no recommended solution.]
F. Creating a "pop-up" option for Retirement Option
4 (e.g., restoring the death benefits of Option 2 should the member's
designated beneficiary predecease the retired member.) Considered
as an "insignificant cost" item. [Approved unanimously.]
G. Effective January 1, 2000:
1. Increasing the "default factor" by $10,000 each
year for higher paid employees until the three-year FAS is restored.
2. Capping the number of years used in the multi-average to
six years (instead of going to the high seven).
3. Restoring the three-year FAS on January 1, 2002, instead
of January 1, 2003. Considered as an "insignificant cost"
to the system. [Deferred-by action of Representative Mona Martin,
committee co-chairperson.]
H. Raising the ceiling on re-employment wages from $12,000 to
$25,000. Considered as an "insignificant cost" to the
system. [Disapproved.]
We have mixed emotions with the decision to defer on item "G."
While this
recommendation is certainly not our first choice, we are hopeful
that the least we will get from this legislative session is an
increase in the default factor, capping the multi-average at six
years, and restoring the three-year final average salary on January
1, 2002, instead of January 1, 2003. On the other hand, we are
vigorously continuing our original objective: to restore the three-year
final average effective January 1, 2000. (This action would make
the increase in the default factor and capping the multi-average
at six years a moot issue.)
While it may appear on the surface that the legislative interim
committee is choosing not to do anything with the three-year final
average salary issue, that is not necessarily the case. Representative
Martin's arbitrary decision to "defer on this matter"
was based on "needing more information." This action
was not reflective of the committee as a whole.
Please, stay in close contact with your respective legislators
on this crucial issue. We can't afford to wait until 2002 to make
another run at this one.
SAI Office
Plans are proceeding very smoothly regarding our new office
building. Our architect (Mike Simonsen and Associates) is in the
final stages of drafting the design plans. We have selected Walter,
Inc. to be our general contractor and have had several meetings
with Randy Snider, president of Walter, Inc.
Construction bids will be let in February, 2000. Part of our
agreement with Walter, Inc. is to "arrive at a guaranteed
final price" on the construction costs. We should know where
we are with this price by the end of February or the first part
of March, 2000.
We originally were thinking of having a groundbreaking ceremony
during our August 9-10, 2000 annual conference. However, as we
develop plans for this year's conference, it does not appear that
there will be an adequate block of time to conduct the groundbreaking
on either August 9 or 10. In addition, we want to make sure all
the concrete and brickwork is completed before the cold, winter
months come around. Moving the groundbreaking ceremony to an earlier
date (June, 2000?) will help us meet this objective.
We are still planning on having the building completed sometime
during April or May, 2000. With our current lease expiring on
June 30, 2001, that should give us plenty of leeway to move from
one office to the other.
SAI Candidates for Vice-President
In keeping with our bylaws, 2000 will be a secondary principal's
turn to serve as Vice-President of the School Administrators of
Iowa. In our last newsletter, I reported that several individuals
had expressed interest in being considered for the nomination.
We are extremely grateful for the following individuals who stepped
forward and declared their interest in being a candidate:
Jan Beatty, principal, Indian Hills Junior High School, West
Des Moines
Mike Christensen, principal, Oskaloosa High School, Oskaloosa
Dennis Heiman, principal, Muscatine High School, Muscatine
Dan Moore, principal, Sergeant Bluff-Luton High School, Sergeant
Bluff
Michael Munoz, principal, Grinnell Middle School, Grinnell
Secondary principals serving on the SAI Representative Council
(14 voting members) selected Dennis Heiman and Dan Moore as the
two candidates for SAI Vice-President. The general election will
be held April 1-15, 2000. All Regular members of SAI (approximately
1960) are eligible to vote in this election.
The individual who is elected will assume the office of Vice-President
on September 1, 2000; President-Elect on September 1, 2001, and
State President on September 1, 2002.
Top
Student
"Speech" in Official School Publications
by Kathy Lee Collins, J.D., SAI Director of Legal Services
I can't believe I haven't written a column about a statute,
somewhat unique to Iowa, that was passed by our legislature in
1989 and has caused a dozen or more headaches (but apparently
no law suits) since then. Better late than never, huh?
Think back: the year is 1988. The United States Supreme Court
decides Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, a case involving a high school
principal in a suburb of St. Louis who didn't think some material
scheduled to appear in the school newspaper was appropriate fare,
so he had two pages deleted.
Our principal was concerned about two pieces in particular.
The first was a story about children of divorced parents. In that
piece by a student journalist, one student was quoted as saying
something derogatory about her father, blaming him and his card-playing-and-drinking-with-his-buddies
behavior for the divorce. The principal felt that the father should
have an opportunity to tell his side of the story (some sort of
warped notion of the federal law giving candidates equal time,
I suppose), and objected to the unfairness or biased reporting
in the article.
He was also unhappy that there was a story about teen pregnancies
at his high school. He later testified to the effect that he thought
people would be able to figure out who the students were who were
interviewed, despite their identities being altered for the article.
He also admitted to being uncomfortable with the discussion of
what forms of birth control these pregnant students had (or hadn't)
used.
Because his review of the galley proofs was last-minute there
was no time to edit, so he simply told the (new) journalism advisor
to delete the two offending articles. This was done (although
they had to delete whole pages, which took some "OK"
articles down too), and the journalism students who had written
the articles sued, claiming he (and accordingly, the school district)
had violated their first amendment right to freedom of expression.
The students relied on Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Sch. Dist.,
the landmark 1969 case establishing student free speech rights
in public schools.
The district court sort of stuck its figurative neck out and
ruled in favor of the school and principal. The Eighth Circuit
(which governs us, don't forget) reversed, following Tinker right
down the line, holding that school officials are precluded from
censoring the contents of the school newspaper except "when
necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with
school work or discipline or the rights of others." The United
States Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit, reinstating
the district court's decision that the principal had not violated
the student journalists' rights. This gave enormous power back
to school administrators, but was limited to school-sponsored
publications.
Well, Iowa has always been pretty proud of its status as highly
educated, well read, even liberal in support of civil liberties.
Plus we had a few activists in the state legislature at the time.
The following legislative session, Senator R.J. Varn led the charge
with a bill designed to restore to students the freedom that the
Supremes had taken away. (By the way, this is permissible. Normally
a state is not free to write laws in contravention of Supreme
Court pronouncements. When those nine justices interpret the Constitution,
their decision is "the supreme law of the land," at
least until a differently constituted Supreme Court rethinks and
reverses the decision. But in cases where the Court rules, for
example, that students have limited constitutional rights in a
given area (i.e., speech), states can always grant them greater
rights. They just couldn't cut down on their rights.)
So R.J. and company passed this law, Iowa Code section 280.22,
in the spring of 1989. In essence it undoes the Hazelwood decision
here. For the administrator coming to Iowa from another state,
or those whose School Law professor didn't point out the status
of Hazelwood in Iowa, and for those who are getting old and forgetful,
key parts of the statute are as follows:
1. The law is limited to student writings in school-sponsored
publications. (It does not cover students' clothing or messages
on clothing, students' oral speech or written speech, i.e., notes
that might be written and passed during school but that are not
part of the school newspaper.)
2. The law only applies to "material produced by students
in the journalism, newspaper, yearbook, or writing classes and
distributed to the student body . . ." (I don't know how
this impacts, for example, a student-created school Web page,
which may have been produced in a computer class. We're going
to try to get an amendment this session to clarify that.) It also
doesn't say only grades 9-12, so I guess elementary school papers
would be covered if students write for them.
3. It restores students' freedom to write what they want in the
school newspaper, but it is NOT without limitations.
4. The limits on students are these: "Students shall not
express, publish, or distribute any of the following:
a. materials which are obscene.
b. materials that are libelous or slanderous under [Iowa Code]
chapter 659.
c. materials which encourage students to do any of the following:
(1) commit unlawful acts
(2) violate lawful school regulations
(3) cause the material and substantial disruption of the orderly
operation of the school.
5. Somebody gets to be in charge of determining whether a student's
article or cartoon or editorial violates the limitations. Those
somebodies are "journalism advisers," and their charge
is to "supervise the production of the student staff, to
maintain professional standards of English and journalism, and
to comply with this section."
6. In exchange for the loss of authority which had been ours under
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the Iowa General Assembly gave us this
consolation prize: "Any expression made by students in the
exercise of free speech, including student expression in official
school publications, shall not be deemed to be an expression of
school policy, and the public school district and school employees
or officials shall not be liable in any civil or criminal action
for any student expression made or published . . ."
So (thank goodness!) no one in your community is entitled to
think, when they read stuff that surprises or perhaps shocks or
offends them in the school newspaper or yearbook, that school
officials approved of it. Right. Tell that to the folks jawing
at the co-op or the café over the "political cartoon"
with a student flipping off someone, or tsk-tsk'ing over a headline
such as "School Lunches Suck!" I'm sure SOMEONE at the
café-probably a school board member-will stand up and say,
"Hey! We cannot deem this student expression to be an expression
of school policy! Stop blaming the administration!"
You can be pretty confident that your journalism or yearbook
adviser is well aware of this law, even if you aren't. You can
also be pretty certain the students in those classes know about
it. The hard question is what to do if you feel your responsible
teachers aren't acting responsibly. What I mean is, it's possible
that student expression that strikes you as falling below "professional
standards of journalism" or perhaps as violating one or more
of the (a) through (c) criteria above may nevertheless pass muster
with the journalism teacher or sponsor. What are your options?
You could feign ignorance of the law and attempt to "persuade"
the journalism adviser or sponsor to delete, amend, or otherwise
edit the material. You could tell the adviser or sponsor, "I
can't define it, but I know obscenity when I see it!" and
hope you're right. You could let it go to print and then have
T-shirts made that read, "Remember: Expression by students
in official school publications shall not be deemed to be an expression
of school policy and I'm not liable for what they write!"
for the administrative team and school board. Or you could let
me know. Allow me to explain.
S.A.I. invited the Editor of The Des Moines Register, Dennis
Ryerson, to be (or appoint someone else from the paper to be)
an arbiter when an administrator believes that student expression
is outside the bounds of "professional standards of English
and journalism" or otherwise in violation of the limitations
in 280.22. He turned us down, opting (can you believe it!!??)
to be able to write about such conflicts in The Register rather
than being a party to them. But then I had a brainstorm: I have
two lawyer friends who teach journalism (one even teaches Media
law!). Whenever there is a disagreement between the administration
and the students and their adviser, we could submit the controversy
to these two professors who can resolve the conflict! At least,
they ought to be able to tell us whether the article or student
writing in question meets professional journalism standards, and
since they're lawyers, we could rely on them to decide the "obscene"
or "libelous or slanderous" stuff. One of them has agreed
and is excited about the prospect of submitting the same controversy
to his students, making it a double-teachable moment, if you will.
Of course, if you could talk the newspaper publisher in your
community into serving in this capacity, you'd save time and add
a new dimension to your school-community relations activities.
I can't predict what kinds of decisions we will get from these
two professors and their classes. (Journalism types are notoriously
liberal, you know.) But at least if "both sides" in
your district agree to abide by the decision, you won't have your
neck sticking out too far if the arbiter sides with the students/adviser,
and the kids and their teacher can't complain too much if the
professor sides with you!
The oh-so-highly coveted CYA Powdered Wig Award for this month
goes to Mark Lee, principal at Pella High School, for bugging
me long enough that I finally asked Ryerson, and then Barbara
Mack and Jeff Stein to help us. Thanks, Mark! Now put away those
scissors and blue pencils, ladies and gentlemen, and call me when
you have a problem.
Top
Determining Our Preferred Future
by Dr. Marcus Haack, SAI Associate Executive Director
This is always a tough article for me to put together. As
I write this, the legislative session is just a little over a
week old and it's far too early to predict exactly what will happen
by the time members of the General Assembly pack up their bags
and return home in late April. However, prognosticators have been
fairly unanimous in their predictions that this will be a session
in which little will be accomplished. Why? The reasons are twofold:
(1) this is an election year, and (2) the state's general fund
budget is in bad shape.
It seems like we've been here before. Or is that "deja
vu all over again"?
Recently I was reading an article by a newspaper columnist
who was lambasting local and state leaders for not being aggressive
enough in determining a vision for the future and allocating the
resources to make the vision a reality. His contention was that
we Iowans have a history (and a habit?) of bragging about our
quality of life, our neighborliness, and our educational excellence.
However he stated that while we are busy bragging, we aren't taking
notice of the dramatic changes in our Iowa way of life. Without
addressing those changes in an aggressive manner, he stated that
we would continue to see Iowans leave the state for other parts
of the country while our "way of life" deteriorates.
All we have to do is take a look at the major challenges facing
education in our state, along with the prediction that little
will come out of this legislative session to address those challenges,
and you have to wonder whether the columnist was right.
Iowa is facing rather dramatic demographic changes and shifts.
School buildings across the state are simply wearing out, or at
the very least, they need a major redesign to facilitate new and
emerging instructional strategies. There is an ever-increasing
need for alternative educational programs for students who don't
fit the "traditional mold." Teacher and administrator
pay continues to slip relative to that in other states. Challenges
are made to licensure standards from substitute teachers to superintendents.
We are facing critical shortages of candidates for both teaching
and educational leadership positions. A majority of new teachers
leave the field within a few years after beginning their teaching
"careers." Test scores continue their gradual decline.
The list goes on and on.
Yet in spite of the many challenges, we are once again facing
the prospect of a 3% - 4% allowable growth rate. And we're being
told we should be happy with that growth factor since the state
budget is really tight this year.
Well, excuse me, but I just don't buy it anymore. Education
DOES get the largest percentage of the state's general fund budget,
I agree. And, yes it IS difficult to meet all of the state's needs
when state revenues lag behind previous predictions and expectations.
However, education always seems to take it on the chin. Without
major INCREASES in financial support, even our most energetic,
aggressive and resourceful educators will not be able to maintain
the high standards of educational excellence to which this state
has become accustomed.
It's time for leaders across this state to put politics aside
and commit themselves to determine what the "preferred future"
of this state should be, and to find new and creative ways to
fund and support that preferred future so that it becomes a reality.
And a preferred future begins with an educated citizenry. Too
often in the past we've heard that you can't continue to throw
money at the educational systems' problems. Or we hear that money
isn't the answer. Well, just once I'd like someone to try. Not
"throwing money at the problem" only guarantees further
erosion of Iowa's public education system and a less than preferred
future. We don't have the luxury of waiting much longer.
Top
Working with an Ever-Changing
Target
by Dr. Elaine Smith-Bright, SAI Director of Professional Development
"In our community the egos of the board get in the
way of what's right for education. We have a board that is micro-managing
to the death of our school right now. In my case I don't think
I could keep four (or five) people happy long enough to stay on
the job," thus was the lament of a principal when he was
asked why he was not seeking a superintendency. His words were
taken directly from a study, supported by SAI, which sought to
identify contributing factors to a lack of candidates for administrative
positions.
Thank goodness, for our students and school districts, most
boards are very effective and conscientious about their roles.
However it is just feelings like those expressed in the opening
paragraph that are echoed by other administrators who cite the
school board as one of the main factors in making the job "just
too political." In the January issue of SAI Report we shared
that SAI, IASB, and the UNI Institute for Educational Leadership
would be joining hands to conduct a conference entitled: KEY WORK
OF SCHOOL BOARDS IN RETHINKING ADMINISTRATION.
We're very happy to report that on January 9th and 10th over
40 board members, eight administrators and multiple educators
from all three organizations came together in Cedar Falls to learn
and share about the board's role in helping attract administrators
and make school administration a more desirable profession.
First the group was informed of recent studies that substantiated
the current and coming shortage of administrator applicants. Next
they heard from three practicing administrators whose instructions
had been "Tell It Like It Is: Share Experiences from the
Field." Your colleagues did a great job of representing you
in describing an administrator's workload. Steve Williams, superintendent,
Marshalltown and Trudy Day, high school principal, Iowa City spoke
as acting administrators. Pam Schmidt, director of instruction
for Hudson and Union told why she didn't want to be an administrator
even though she had her endorsement. Working within a brainstorming
and consensus-building format the large group identified six high
priority critical issues:
- IDENTIFYING AND OVERCOMING
ENTRY BARRIERS
- BUILDING LEADERSHIP CAPACITY
WITHIN THE DISTRICT
- RETHINKING JOB EXPECTATIONS OF
PRINCIPALS AND SUPERINTENDENTS
- BUILDING SUPPORT FOR
EDUCATIONAL LEADERS
- RESTRUCTURING COMPENSATION
AND BENEFITS TO REFLECT THE
DEMANDS OF THE PRINCIPALSHIP
AND SUPERINTENDENCY
- CLARIFY THE BOARD'S ROLE IN
SUPPORTING SCHOOL LEADERS
By dividing down the large group, six subcommittees were available
to work on further defining and prioritizing each critical issue.
Once again very capable administrators acted as resource individuals
to help answer questions school board members might have about
what's really happening today.
Those resource people, besides Steve, Trudy and Pam, included:
Ron Crooks, superintendent, Union Community; Harold Overmann,
consultant on School Leadership, DE; Tom Perry, elementary principal,
Mt. Pleasant; Jerry Waugh, superintendent, Grundy Center. Each
subcommittee's additional charge was to formulate resolutions
and three or four key recommendations for addressing their specific
critical issue area.
All data gathered by the six areas will be analyzed to determine
themes and molded into final recommendations. Those recommendations
will serve as the basis for the development of an action plan
that all three organizations have committed to carrying out! Overall
the two days were extremely productive and informative. Everyone
left with a new awareness of board/administrator relations and
how they affect not only the shortage, but also the everyday workings
of a district.
Surely no one believes one working conference and commitment
to one action plan will bring about a massive change in administrator/board
relationships, but it is a step in the right direction. And it
might, just might, help prevent a scenario similar to this one
shared by an administrator who participated in the same study
as the one quoted in the opening. The administrator talked of
watching what he thought was an outstanding and a long-standing
superintendent forced to stand-by while the district evolved into
a mess, "The board in eight years went from a board that
sort of had the principles in mind, we're going to tell you what
we want you to do and then step back and you're the expert, you're
going to figure out how to do it; to a board where we are going
to tell you what we want you to do, we're going to tell you how
to do it, we're going to come in periodically and look over your
shoulder and see that you are doing it, and if you're not doing
it we're going to run you out."
Seeking community input about student achievement is required
under Iowa's school accountability law. It's also critically important
to ensuring the kind of community ownership and support you'll
need throughout the school improvement process. Knowing how community
members feel about education and student achievement in your community
is an important tool to have in your school/community relations
tool kit.
In 1998, the Iowa State Education Association asked 603 registered
voters what factors they used when judging the quality of education
students get from a school. The three factors that topped the
list were: how well teachers and administrators communicate with
parents (84%), safety (83%) and experience level of teachers (80%).
A similar poll was conducted on the national level by A-Plus Communications
that same year. Not surprisingly, results nationally shook out
much the same. According to the report, "parents and taxpayers
want the students to be safe and have qualified teachers after
these basic conditions are met, they want performance."
Most of the national and state data reflects public perceptions
rather broadly. While it's important information, it still doesn't
provide the most important knowledge districts need-the perceptions
and priorities of local patrons. Better known as a "community
needs assessment," this step in the school improvement process
is getting a lot of attention since the adoption of the school
accountability law, even though its been required for years. (Hint:
it pays to constantly be "in tune" with what community
members think rather than just every five years as is minimally
required by law.)
But how do you seek community input when traditional methods
seem to get such disappointing return rates? Below are several
methods you could use to find out what patrons in your district
think:
Person-on-the-street-interviews: Think of the five o'clock news-quick snippets caught on videotape of people's responses to a particular question, issue or event. This isn't as hard as it might seem. All you need are a video camera, someone willing to
play reporter (could be a great project for a high school journalism class) and an area where people gather.
Focus groups or "group interviews": Focus groups can be a great way to find out what a smaller group of people think about an issue. Basically, it involves getting a group of 7-10 people together in a circle configuration with ground rules, a moderator, and a short list of questions.
Written surveys: Written surveys have been the "old standby" of needs assessments but often provide disappointing return rates (about 8%) unless creative ideas are used to get them back. Surveys should be short (one page, back and front) and written in straightforward, layperson-friendly language.
Phone surveys: Conducting a phone survey doesn't have to mean employing a telemarketing firm. Invite the PTA or other community group to ask a list of no more than five questions of community members chosen at random.
Public forums: In any forum or large group community setting where you are assessing the goals of the community for the school, be sure to include specific questions on the agenda.
News media polling: Invite your local newspaper, radio or television station to conduct a poll for you on what people want to know about student achievement.
Interactive web site: If your district Web page is hosted by your AEA, check to see if they have access to interactive software that could enable you to use your page as an electronic survey tool.
For a complete book of tips and tools for communicating
under Iowa's School Improvement and Accountability law, watch
for a soon-to-be released publication entitled Communicating about
Student Achievement: A School Leader's Toolkit. The toolkit is
published jointly by the Iowa School Public Relations Association,
Iowa's Area Education Agencies and the Iowa Association of School
Boards.