Representative Council
Takes Giant Steps
by Dr. Gaylord Tryon, SAI Executive Director
The SAI Representative Council held a special
meeting on Wednesday, March 17, 1999, to do some follow-up work on our long-range
planning process. Three issues were addressed as a result of recommendations
submitted by our long-range planning committees:
1. To delete reference to individual departments in our bylaws;
2. To add one full-time staff position (Director of Professional Development);
3. To give serious consideration to constructing our own office building.
(Our long-range planning process was initiated in 1998 and completed in February of this year. Approximately 40 members were involved in preliminary discussions. The final meeting included the Executive Committee and all six staff members.)
When SAI was first organized (September, 1987), the idea of individual departments was established to help maintain identity of the two merging organizations-Iowa Association of School Administrators (superintendents, central office administrators) and the Educational Administrators of Iowa (building principals). Following discussions by the long-range planning committee and the bylaws review committee, it was agreed that maintaining the department concept was an idea that had served its purpose but one that was no longer needed. Therefore, it was recommended that the Representative Council amend the bylaws by deleting any reference to the Department of General Administrators and the Department of School Principals.
Following the Council's discussion on March 17, there was general agreement that the two departments be deleted, but formal action was deferred until the next meeting on June 10.
The second recommendation discussed and approved by the Representative Council was to add one full-time staff position (Director of Professional Development) effective July 1, 1999. The primary responsibilities of this position will include the following:
Part of the rationale for this added position included the importance of more regional workshops hosted by SAI throughout the state. Also, adding another staff position will allow us to devote more staff time to our legislative efforts-giving SAI a much stronger presence over on the hill. In addition, this change will allow current staff to assume responsibilities for the SAI EdJobs Online program and the new listserve project that will be implemented later this spring. (We have been using the services of an independent contractor to help us get the EdJobs Online program implemented.)
A third issue discussed by the Representative Council was the question of continuing to lease office space or build our own office facilities. SAI has excellent office facilities that include a conference room that we use to host leadership labs, governance meetings, and various other SAI committees and task forces. In addition, this facility is frequently used by other groups/organizations because of its strategic location within the greater Des Moines area.
However, since we are paying rent, rather than building equity, it was agreed by the Council that we should give serious consideration to owning our own office facilities. A resolution was adopted to appropriate up to $5,000 to hire an architect to develop preliminary building plans. These plans will enable the Council to more accurately determine the costs of constructing a new building.
In addition, the Council agreed to appropriate $5,000 to secure an option to buy on approximately one acre of land in the West Des Moines/Clive area. This space would accommodate a 6,000 square foot building and approximately 35 parking spaces. (We currently are renting a facility that consists of 5713 square feet.) While we are not committed to any agreement to construct a building, this action will give us the opportunity to gather more information so we can make a more informed decision when the Council meets on June 10, 1999. Based on preliminary figures, it appears that we can construct our own building and save the association some money in the long run.
The meeting on March 17 was another milestone in the continued development of this association. SAI members can be proud of the leadership and wisdom being provided by our state officers and other members of the Representative Council. They are making decisions on your behalf and doing so in a responsible, patient, and caring manner.
What an exciting time for SAI!
IDEA Changes: At
Long LastRegs!
by Kathy Lee Collins, J.D., SAI Director of Legal Services
Whoopie! The final regulations implementing the revised (1997) special
education law are finally out. The good news is that some of the vexatious,
troublesome interpretations or provisions of the former law or regulations
have been modified. The bad news is, the U.S. Department of Education apparently
tried to keep the baby AND the bath water in adopting these rules. You know:
they tried to satisfy the student advocates and the administrator advocates.
Sometimes that results in a set of rules that pleases everyone and doesn't
work at all.
Take for example the famous (or infamous) "ten-day rule" regarding suspensions of special education students. Although the legal basis for the ten-day rule was unquestionably Goss v. Lopez, a U.S. Supreme Court decision delineating the due process rights of students in public schools being suspended for ten days or less, when applied to special education students, historically "they" (the U.S. Department of Ed. and student advocates) have interpreted the "ten-day" rule to be a cumulative total of ten days in a school year rather than ten days at a time, consecutively. Those of you who have heard me rail on this subject for ten years or more know that I've always felt that was the stupidest interpretation in the world. If a student is suspended for one day a month in a school year of ten months (eleven if your district starts in August and extends into June), how could anyone call that a "change in placement"? Yet that was the bright line rule apparently adopted by the U.S. Department of Ed. The new regulations purport to "clarify" the Department's long-standing definition of what constitutes a "change in placement" by stating that it occurs (a) when a student is excluded from school for more than ten days in a row; or (b) when a student is subjected to a series of removals that constitute a pattern. Hallelujah!
Oh, how I wish they would have left it there. Instead, they couldn't let go of that old ten-cumulative-day piece, so they added, in defining "pattern," the fact that the removals cumulate to more than ten school days in a school year TOGETHER WITH ("and") factors such as the length of the removal, the total amount of time the child is removed, and the proximity of removals to one another. I could have lived with the factors they announced: How long? How often? But when they kept the ten day figure in there, it definitely makes it harder for some people to let go of the notion that a total of ten days in a year is somehow a violation. What the new regulation suggests is that it is one factor to be considered. As I've often said, if you exceed a total of ten days in a school year, the earth doesn't open up and swallow the school. A "change in placement" happens, logically, when the kid is bounced so frequently that s/he cannot progress in school.
It remains to be seen, therefore, how this new regulation will be interpreted by the courts. I feel confident in saying that ten cumulative days, standing alone, without consideration of the other factors announced in the regs, will not get you in trouble with the feds. And let us not forget what the Department reminds us of in their missives explaining the new regs: the number of days of suspension only comes into play if the parent doesn't agree to the removals (or the ultimate removal where they finally say "No."). The number of days of suspension imposed on a special ed. student has to be the same as a general education student would receive for the same behavior/misconduct. Additionally, we also have to remember that the above discussion is for suspension due to "run of the mill" school infractions. If the misbehavior involves drugs (possession, use, dealing) at school or involves dangerous weapons (bringing to school or possessing at school), we have the potential (not requirement) to remove the student from his/her current placement for up to 45 calendar days. That is a decision school administrators can make without a consensus of the IEP team (or parental agreement). The "where" question (what/where will the student's alternative placement be for those 45 days) is a decision for the staffing team.
Another gain is a clarification that school administrators, in consultation with the student's special education teacher, can decide what services the student needs, if any, for a short-term (under ten-day) suspension "to enable the child to continue to appropriately progress in the general curriculum and toward the goals in" the IEP. (Of course, if the removal is long-term or constitutes a "change in placement," the whole staffing team needs to be involved in that decision.)
The explanation to the new regulations states that we only need to do a manifestation determination when a child is subjected to a disciplinary change in placement. However, there is also a general statement prohibiting disciplining a student for behavior that is a manifestation of the student's disability, so I don't know how you'd ever know without doing a manifestation determination whether you were disciplining the student for disability-related behavior. Clear as mud, huh? (The U.S. Ed. Department's illuminating, explanatory documents purport to state that you have ten free days without having to do a manifestation determination, but I read the new regs as talking out of both sides of the mouth in this regard. We have to engage in the "legal fiction" that suspensions from school for ten days or less are not "discipline." That flies in the face of good old Goss v. Lopez.)
One more "clarification" pertains to BIPs and FBAs. (Even my computer balks at those terms!) You remember: "Behavioral Intervention Plans" and "Functional Behavioral Assessments." The literature states that we only need to convene the IEP team within ten business days to create or review the student's BIP or FBA (a) the first time the student is removed for more than ten days in a school year (there's that pesky old interpretation of the ten-day rule again!), or (b) whenever the student is subjected to a disciplinary change in placement. According to the feds, in other removals during the school year, the IEP team members can review (presumably individually) the BIP without a meeting. The only time the team actually has to meet is if "one or more of the team members believe that the plan or its implementation need modification."
So, in terms of student discipline, were the AASA, NASSP and NAESP successful in lobbying for a more realistic, reasonable interpretation of the IDEA in the regulations? I'd say yes. Did we get clear direction? No. I mean, we're talking governmental regulations here, folks. What can you expect? Clearly, what is to be avoided is repeated suspensions. It might be quick and easy to suspend students every time they do something wrong, but we can't do it over and over and over without facing the accusation that we've effectively changed the student's placement. Frankly, if we keep suspending the same student, whether s/he's special or regular ed., we haven't been very effective in our discipline.
Other highlights, quickly:
The regs haven't shrunk. I think I heard they're 480+ pages to download from the Internet. (http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/IDEA/index.html)
Obviously I haven't covered everything here. Heck, I have to give you
a reason to read my column in the future, don't I? It will be interesting
to see how our state administrative law judges interpret some of the new
regulations, and then how the courts react to those decisions. Undoubtedly,
the regs and revised law have created full employment for school attorneys!
Bipartisanship Agreement on Major Education
Legislation
by Dr. Marcus Haack, SAI Associate Executive Director
As I sit at the computer and hammer out this month's legislative report,
it appears that the Iowa Legislature is poised to pass one of the signature
pieces of Governor Tom Vilsack's education package. The bill, now referred
to as the Early Intervention Block Grant Bill (HF 743), contains funding
for early childhood programs, reading programs, class size reduction and
technology.
Governor Vilsack campaigned hard on the notion that money should be awarded
to schools in order to help them reach a student/teacher ratio of 17:1.
While education advocates were hopeful for additional new funding for Iowa's
public schools, there was a real concern that along with the funds there
would be a legislative "mandate" that all schools be required
to establish the 17:1 ratio in grades K-3.
In addition to those concerns, there was a wide disparity between the governor's request for $150 million over five years to fund this bill and the legislature's stance that the funding should be held to $30 million over three years. The differences, which could have resulted in yet another unproductive legislative session comparable to the 1998 session, instead produced intense negotiations between the governor's staff and the legislative leadership.
The end result of those negotiations, and I'm sure at times heated discussions, was HF 743. This bill in many ways provides Iowa schools with the best of both worlds, additional funds ($150 million over four years) along with flexibility in how the funds are targeted.
Specifically HF 743 appropriates funds as follows:
In addition the bill appropriates $30 million each for fiscal year 2002 and 2003. This funding extends the current five year, $150 million dollar technology appropriation for two additional years.
The interesting feature of HF 743 is the flexibility it allows a local school district in determining how funds can be used. The bill states that the early intervention block grant program's goals are to provide the resources needed to reduce class sizes in basic skills instruction to the state goal of 17 students for every one teacher, to provide direction and resources for early intervention efforts by school districts to achieve a higher level of student success in the basic skills, especially reading skills, and to increase communication and accountability regarding student performance.
At first glance it would appear this language is quite prescriptive. However, in the "Program Expenditures" section of the bill it states the following: school districts may expend funds received at the kindergarten through grade three level on program instructional support, and materials that include, but are not limited to, the following: additional licensed instructional staff; additional support for students, such as before and after school programs, tutoring, and intensive summer programs; the acquisition and administration of diagnostic reading assessments; the implementation of research-based instructional intervention programs for students needing additional support; the implementation of all-day, everyday kindergarten programs; and the provision of classroom teachers with intensive training programs to improve reading instruction and professional development in best practices, including but not limited to training programs related to instruction to increase students' phonemic awareness, reading abilities, and comprehension skills.
But wait, there's more! The technology section of HF 743 was written with extensive flexibility as well. While the main purpose of the technology funds is to extend the existing technology legislation and appropriation, HF 743 states that a school district may expend up to two-thirds of the funds received for any activities permitted in the early intervention block grant program, including the employment of additional licensed instructional staff.
HF 743 is not the answer to all of our educational needs in Iowa. However, it is a positive first step. In a recent meeting with Governor Vilsack, he emphasized that one legislative session can't make up for years of underfunding public education in Iowa. He is hopeful that with the support of educators, parents and the combined efforts of educational advocacy organizations, we can reverse the trend. If we expect more from schools we have to be willing to support them and invest in them. Hopefully the bills we've seen this year, such as increased allowable growth, budget guarantees, on-time funding and HF 743 will mark the beginning of a new understanding for the need to provide more support for Iowa's schools, not less.
Building News Media Partnerships
by Sharon Miller, Director of School and Community Relations, Waterloo Community
School District and Diane Ostrowski, APR, Supervisor of Community Services,
Council Bluffs Community School District
Contrary to popular belief, there IS such a thing as bad publicity. That's why it is so important to build relationships with your news media representatives and to earn their trust and respect. Here are a few suggestions that will help you maximize your opportunity for positive and fair coverage in the media and minimize the chance for negative publicity about your school district.
1. Build Relationships
2. Think Like a Reporter
3. Give Them a Hand
4. Make the Most of Interviews
It can rattle your bones: Miss Construe from channel 13 is on her way over with a film crew and wants your reaction to last night's board meeting! You could never afford to buy this kind of airtime (or print space), so make the most of it by following these simple steps:
Who is the audience? It's not the reporter, but parents or voters or business leaders, for example. What is important to this audience? What are their concerns, their fears, their priorities?
What do you want your target audience to know about the issue at hand? Distill these messages until you create concise and powerful "sound bites." Example: The Board is committed to holding the line on taxes. Children can't learn when they're afraid.
Forget pages of statistics and the educational jargon. Pretend you're trying to convince a 10-year-old-no preaching, no condescension, only honest, warm persuasion in plain English.
Practice your messages out loud until they roll off your tongue. If time, rehearse likely Q and A.
When you're face to face with the reporter, stay in control. Just because a question is asked doesn't mean it must be answered. Stay relaxed and on message. Find ways to lead from the question to the point you want to make, including your key message a number of times throughout the interview.
It goes without saying that truth is the only option. If you don't know or can't say, be matter of fact and promise to follow-up when you find the answer or it is possible to release more information. (Be sure to do as you promise.) Never say "No comment," rather "confidentiality laws won't let me discuss that..." or "I don't have that information, but I can try to get it."
On camera, maintain eye contact with the reporter, not the camera. Watch your body language and don't be afraid to pause to answer thoughtfully. Be sensitive to your reporter's deadline, but take the time you need to cover the ground you intend.
If you can approach your relationship with the media as one of mutual
respect and interdependence, you'll be well on your way to the best possible
coverage.