Representative Council
Sets IPERS Priorities
by Dr. Gaylord Tryon, SAI Executive Director
At its June 10, 1999 meeting, the SAI Representative
Council, following a detailed survey/discussion of all 52 members, set the
following IPERS priorities for the 2000 legislative session (in order):
· Revising the formula for death benefits for active members;
· Eliminating the seven-year final average salary and reverting immediately back to a three-year final average salary;
· Redefining normal retirement to the Rule of 85;
· Eliminating the early retirement penalty altogether. (This action would make the Rule of 85 a moot issue since any vested member could retire without an age reduction penalty.)
For the past several years, SAI has been an active participant in the IPERS Constituency Group. The membership of this group consists of the IPERS management staff and organizations interested in the continued strengthening of IPERS benefits (e.g., SAI, ISEA, Iowa Association of Community Colleges, Retired School Personnel Association, State Police Officers Council, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs Association, IASB, etc.)
The primary purpose of this group is to review and recommend improvements in IPERS benefits-always keeping in mind the integrity of the IPERS trust fund. For the past several months, the IPERS Constituency Group has been studying and discussing which areas to focus on during the 2000 legislative session. As of this writing, there are about 10-12 issues with which the group has been spending most of its time. Some of these issues include:
· increasing the death benefit for active members
· increasing the COLA to 100 % of the CPI for those individuals who retired prior to July 1, 1990
· capping the Favorable Experience Dividend (FED) at 10 years
· moving to the Rule of 85
· eliminating the early retirement penalty
· increasing the "default factor" for higher paid employees by $10,000 each year and freezing the formula at six years rather than continuing to seven years
· eliminating the ceiling on reemployment wages (beyond which retirees' pensions are reduced)
· allowing elected officials to retire without resigning their positions
· providing credit for years of service through 40 years
· fixing/clarifying the "computed year" for school employees
The IPERS Constituency Group will prioritize these items later this fall and present their recommendations to the legislative interim committee in November of this year.
On a related note, the IPERS management staff has recently released some interesting facts pertaining to IPERS benefits. For example:
1. There were approximately 47,000 retirees in 1987. That figure has now increased to 64,311. IPERS is predicting that the total retiree population will range from 92,000-95,000 by the year 2010.
2. In FY 1989, the total payout for retirement benefits was $169,173,736. That figure increased to $461,766,375 in the fiscal year just concluded.
3. In FY 1989, the average monthly benefit was $296.18. As of June, 1999, the average monthly benefit has increased to $593.14.
4. Going to the Rule of 85 would add about 2200 more people to the list of eligible retirees.
5. The IPERS program was about 93.5 % funded as of July 1, 1998. It is estimated that it will take approximately 8 years to pay off all unfunded liabilities.
One of the issues that SAI follows very closely is the seven-year final average salary for higher paid employees. Following is some very interesting/pertinent data that we recently obtained from the IPERS office.
· Out of a total of approximately 150,000 active members, only 4497 (3 % of all active members) currently earn $55,000 or more annually.
· Of that number, 3207 (71 % of the 3 %) are below the earliest possible retirement age of 55.
· Only 1,290 (29 % of the 3 %), or less than 1 % of our active members, earn $55,000 or above and are 55 years of age or older.
· Of that group currently eligible to retire, only 275 individuals (.2 % of all active members) make $75,000 or above.
Next year is regarded as an "IPERS year" since the legislature typically takes up IPERS benefits during the even-numbered years (which, by chance, are election years!). The General Assembly will no doubt devote considerable time debating which IPERS improvements to adopt (if any). Rest assured SAI will be right in the midst of the fray doing our best to advocate for additional improvements in IPERS benefits-especially the four priority items listed in the first paragraph.
We have made a concerted effort laying ground work in preparation for the next legislative session. This effort includes getting two bills filed during the 1999 session, meeting individually during the summer and fall months with members of the legislative interim committee, working with our own IPERS subcommittee, developing fact sheets and white papers to share with our members, working with IASB to help make local boards more aware of the issues, and continuing to be an active participant in the IPERS Constituency group.
We think the 2000 legislative session holds great
promise in terms of making improvements in IPERS benefits. We are looking
forward to the challenge and looking forward to working with our members
in bringing these improvements to reality.
Top
Two Significant Special
Ed. Decisions
by Kathy Lee Collins, J.D., SAI Director of Legal Services
Last spring, two important decisions involving special education law
were announced. The first, Cedar Rapids CSD v. Garret F., involved the question
of who pays for a one-on-one full-time nurse for a student with serious
physical needs. In legal terms, the issue was whether the services of such
a person would fall under "related services" or "medical
services." If the nursing care fell into the first category, the district
would have to provide and pay for the nurse. If it fell into the last category,
it would be excluded under the IDEA.
The Garret F. case was heard by the United States Supreme Court last November and a decision was issued in early March. The Court affirmed the ALJ (Dr. Larry Bartlett), the federal district court for the northern district of Iowa, and the Eighth Circuit. The Court held that continuous nursing services fall under the term "related services" and are not excludable as "medical services," ordering the district to provide and pay for the nurse for Garret. At issue was whether the Supreme Court's 1984 decision, Irving Indep. School Dist. v. Tatro (the case involving clean, intermittent catheterization for Amber Tatro) meant what it implied: that the term "medical services" as used in the federal regulations, means support services that can only be provided by a medical doctor.
In Tatro the facts showed that anyone with proper training - not just a doctor or nurse - could perform the catheterization procedure, including Amber herself in a few years. Therefore, the catheterization was a "related service" that must be provided by school personnel and was not excludable as a "medical service." In the Cedar Rapids case, the Court confirmed that the doctor/trained nurse (or other trained individual) distinction is the standard, and unless Garret's needs could only be met by a medical doctor, the district had to provide and pay for whatever health services were necessary for the young man to benefit from an education. The Court wrote, "While more extensive, the in-school services Garret needs are no more 'medical' than was the care sought in Tatro." Thus the distinction and the law is this: If a student's IEP requires a specific service that can only be provided by a medical doctor, we can say "No" and not be responsible for providing or paying for that service. (Please note that we do have to provide both diagnostic and evaluative services performed by medical doctors. That's the exception to the exception.)
The Cedar Rapids school district argued forcefully, albeit unsuccessfully, that such a distinction is fairly meaningless in reality. After all, what services "can only be provided by a doctor" and would likely be necessary at school? It's not like we have surgeries conducted during recess. Could Congress really have meant to exclude services that can only be provided by a physician? Yes, answered the Court.
The school district also raised the question of cost, asking the Court to consider expense as one factor in deciding whether a particular service was "medical" or "related." The Court declined the invitation, stressing that the law itself doesn't reference cost, and using that as a factor "would require us to engage in judicial lawmaking." The Court held that continuous services are not transformed into medical services simply because they are more costly or may require more or highly trained personnel. Thus cost is, in a word, irrelevant.
Well, I suppose it's nice to know what the answer is, even if we don't like it. The solution? As I see it we have two choices: (1) Let Congress know that they need to reimburse the often exceptionally high costs for medically fragile students using the federal funds they promised in the first place when enacting the special education law back in 1974, or (2) start grafting, cloning, or otherwise duplicating the Money Tree that Congress and the state legislature seem to think we have on every campus.
The second case of import was decided by the Eighth Circuit in April and involved another Iowa school district. In John T. v. Marion Indep. Sch. Dist., the issue was who is going to pay for a full time mobility and communications aide for a student with physical disabilities attending a parochial school. You guessed it. The public school district is responsible for paying for this person. The interesting thing is that this case was decided on the basis of Iowa law, not the IDEA.
Iowa Code section 256.12 deals with "shared time" students. That is, the statute governs the whys and wherefores of non-public school students (generally) coming to the public school for a portion of their education. Subsection (2) of the statute goes into detail about when and where certain services are made available to students. If memory serves, the sentences I'm about to quote came about when the federal special education law was originally enacted and, more importantly, reflected several holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment Establishment Clause ("separation of church and state"). The statute read, for many years:
School districts and area education agency boards shall make public school services, which shall include special education programs and services and may include health services, services for remedial education programs, guidance services, and school testing services, available to children attending nonpublic schools in the same manner and to the same extent that they are provided to public school students. However, services that are made available shall be provided on neutral sites, or in mobile units located off the nonpublic school premises as determined by the boards of the school districts and [AEAs] providing the services, and not on nonpublic school property, except for health services, services funded by Title I of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and diagnostic services for speech, hearing and psychological purposes, which may be provided on nonpublic school premises, with the permission of the lawful custodian.
Translation: Public educational institutions (LEAs and AEAs) have to serve kids with special needs who are enrolled in nonpublic schools. However, when they serve them, they should serve them at the public school or in those ever-popular mobile units, and shouldn't actually provide services at the nonpublic schools except for health services; Title I reading and math assistance; and speech, hearing, and psych diagnostic services. Those exceptions pretty much follow the things the Supreme Court decided didn't offend the Establishment Clause back in the 1970s and 80s. In the 1990s the Supreme Court decided two more cases of Establishment Clause significance. The first one was a special education case. Parents of a hearing impaired student enrolled at a parochial school asked the public school to pay for a signing interpreter. The district refused, citing the First Amendment, to the effect that the Constitution (as interpreted at that time by the Supreme Court of the United States, especially in a case captioned Aguilar v. Felton) prohibited them from placing a public school employee onto private school grounds.
The case wound up before Sandy, Ruth and The Boys, who said that a hearing interpreter isn't like a teacher; s/he functions more like a machine. S/he, in translating the words of the teacher - which may include religious references from time to time -- is simply acting as a conduit for the words of the teacher. That's not like paying a person with public funds, putting him or her onto parochial grounds and allowing him or her to proselytize (advance a particular religion or religious belief). So they said it was OK for the public school to pay for the hearing interpreter who would serve full-time on parochial school grounds; that didn't offend the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Presumably in response, the Iowa legislature amended the law quoted above to add the phrase "and assistance with physical and communication needs of students with physical disabilities, and services of an educational interpreter" to the list of "except fors" (the services that may be provided on nonpublic grounds). The next thing that happened is that the United States Supreme Court reversed Aguilar v. Felton, the 1985 case that said we can't put a public school paid teacher on non-public school grounds to serve nonpublic school kids. In reversing Aguilar, the Court decided they had either underestimated the integrity of teachers back in 1985 or overestimated the dangers of placing public employees on church grounds. I like to say that in this case (Agostini v. Felton) they admitted there really is no Educational Bogeyman lurking in the Establishment Clause. The high court decided that it isn't all that likely that placing a publicly-paid employee in a church school setting is going to cause him or her to start spouting church doctrine instead of reading and math.
So that left us wondering why our Iowa statute should continue to make a now-false distinction among which non-instructional services can be provided on nonpublic grounds and which have to be provided on "neutral sites." But despite our wondering, the statute didn't change.
The next thing that happened is that Congress reauthorized the IDEA and changed or clarified the responsibility of public schools to provide and pay for services to special ed. students on nonpublic school grounds. The 1997 amendments to the law "substantially limit[ed] the rights of disabled children enrolled by their parents in a private school," according to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and "under the post-1997 IDEA ... parents had no right to receive school district-funded services at a private religious school."
However, despite the fact that the reauthorized IDEA wouldn't require it, the question still remained what the Iowa law meant:
"School districts and [AEAs] shall make... special education programs and services... available to children attending nonpublic schools in the same manner and to the same extent that they are provided to public school students." The John T. v. Marion C.SD case answered that question. The Iowa statute means that public schools will be footing the bill for special ed. services to eligible kids enrolled at nonpublic schools. The only question remaining is whether we can still make some distinctions between the kinds of services that are still OK (in a phrase, "non-instructional" types of services) versus services that arguably shouldn't be provided: teachers for sure and educational aides for maybe.
Doncha hate it when lawyers weasel around? I do! But all I can say at this point is "I don't know" whether the Eighth Circuit would have ruled the same way if the student's IEP specified a one-on-one instructional aide instead of a one-on-one mobility and communications aide. I can give you my best guess: Given the U.S. Supreme Court's Agostini decision, the phrase "in the same manner and to the same extent" means that whatever the student would have received at the public school, he or she is entitled to receive at the private school. The word "public" in the special ed. law's promise of a "free appropriate public education" doesn't mean "in the public school." Rather it appears to mean "at public expense."
The solution? We have to convince the Iowa legislature (and probably
our Governor as well) that Iowa law should be consistent with federal law
in the area of special education. The session starts in roughly 130 days.
A call a day to your legislators ought to convince them you're serious.
There may be times when your district is willing to provide certain services
to special ed. kids enrolled at church schools or even nonreligious schools,
but the law should be permissive, not mandatory. If anyone finds a legislator
willing to sponsor a bill for us, give Marc or me a call. Covey's first
principle: Be Proactive. Let's do it!
Top
Presidential Wannabees
by Dr. Marcus Haack, SAI Associate Executive Director
To those of you who have been part of the SAI family in the past, "Welcome
back!" To those of you joining us for the first time, "Welcome
aboard." And to each and every one of you, here's to a successful and
rewarding school year!
As the school year begins I'd like to encourage each of you to "stay tuned" for important legislative news on both the state and national levels. We'll be working hard to keep you updated on the latest education issues being considered and debated by our elected representatives in Des Moines and in Washington, DC. Check our web site frequently for the latest in legislative news, and if you haven't already done so, sign up NOW for SAI's listserve so you can receive timely updates regarding legislative issues via your e-mail.
As much as we hate to admit it, presidential politics have invaded the state. The Ames Republican Straw Poll reminded us once again that Iowa is a major player in the political process (such as it is) for choosing the major party presidential candidates.
During our Annual SAI Conference in August several members asked if I'd done any research regarding where the presidential candidates stood relative to education. Not a bad idea! The winter caucuses will be here before you know it, and assuming that a fair number of our members will participate in the process, I thought I'd share what I was able to find so far.
As expected, virtually all of the candidates in both the Democratic and Republican parties identify education as a major policy issue. How they view improving education in this country varies widely, however. Space won't allow me to thoroughly analyze each candidate's views. However, here is a "thumbnail sketch" of where they stand, at least according to their respective web sites.
On the Republican side, front-runner George W. (as in Bush!) states that Education is a "Number One Priority" (www.georgewbush.com). Interestingly enough his website doesn't provide information about what he would do for education if elected president. Rather, the site highlights what he has done as the governor of Texas, including abolishing social promotion, creating reading academies, boosting teacher pay by $3,000, increasing expectations and demanding accountability by expanding state testing to grades 3-11 and requiring a high school exit exam, emphasizing early intervention, expanding the Advanced Placement Program, expanding after-school programs for middle school children in high-risk areas and providing additional funding for textbooks and instructional materials.
Steve Forbes, the "runner-up" in the Ames straw poll, has an extensive education section on his website based on the belief that "a good education is a passport to economic freedom." As president, Forbes (www.forbes2000.com) would support K-12 education reform options that put power back in the hands of parents and teachers, including support for public school choice, charter schools, educational savings accounts, vouchers, private opportunity scholarships, tuition tax credits, home schooling, English immersion programs and block granting of federal funds. In addition he would use the Justice Department to fight special interest groups opposing parental control of education, and would protect the legal rights of all parents and children from civil rights discrimination and educational discrimination.
Third-place finisher, Elizabeth Dole's website (www.edole2000.org) indicates that she is committed to "restoring public education to greatness." However, the site is short on specifics. She does indicate that we need to restore discipline in the classroom, encourage parents to participate in their children's education and elevate the position of teachers in society by rewarding excellence.
The apparent leader of the Christian conservative wing of the Republican Party, Gary Bauer (www.bauer2k.com), favors parental choice, educational savings accounts, decentralization of major education policy decisions, home schooling and vigilant protection of the right of parents to pursue choice. He opposes national government testing and other "centrally-driven curriculum revisions."
On the Democratic side, Vice-President Al Gore's website (www.AlGore2000.com) indicates his support for strengthening families with "a program of revolutionary change in education." The program focuses on making pre-school available to every child; improving teacher quality and elevating the teaching profession; fundamentally changing the American high school; turning around failing schools; adopting a new focus on discipline, character, values, safety, and parental involvement; and savings plans and tax cuts to make college and job training more affordable.
Democratic challenger, Bill Bradley (www.billbradley.com), advocates for lifelong learning, holding teachers and principals accountable, improving teacher preparation and ongoing professional development, improved technology and national standards.
If you're interested in seeing more about the presidential candidates'
positions on education (including candidates not covered in this article),
check out the special page on the SAI website. In the meantime, have a great
school year!
Top
Just to share a little background, this position is an outgrowth of members' suggestions and a constant desire to meet the needs of you our members. It is also a proactive step to totally review and rethink our leadership development opportunities. Standards for administrators, just as for students and teachers, are a constant discussion item among legislators and state officials. SAI plans to be an active participant in those discussions and on the forefront in bringing you up-to-date information on their development, and then in providing services for you to meet those standards. Further, we welcome your thoughts and ideas for our long range planning in retooling professional program offerings so please feel free to write, phone, or e-mail your thoughts. Because we want to be sure to get good across-the-board opinions, watch for a survey on the topic in your mail before the year is out.
For 1999-2000 we will follow the very successful model that SAI has utilized for two years of providing strands of pertinent learning opportunities, including: IMPLEMENTING NEW STANDARDS - offering helpful details on the many challenges House File 2272 has presented us with in the development of Comprehensive School Improvement Plans, GUIDING SPECIAL EDUCATION providing pertinent information on the constant demands of meeting special education requirements, and ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY supplying timely suggestions on dealing with safety concerns, a changing population, and a requirement to involve the community in school improvement planning.
Along with the strands, SAI will continue to offer workshops aimed at specific administrator populations and their unique needs for learning opportunities. Those workshops will include ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS, MIDDLE LEVEL PRINCIPALS, SECONDARY PRINCIPALS, SUPERINTENDENTS, CENTRAL OFFICE ADMINISTRATORS, AND SCHOOL SECRETARIES. Anyone who has been an administrator for even a short time realizes the importance of knowing school law for "keeping oneself out of trouble." As in past years SAI will sponsor a LAW CONFERENCE and as a new service there will be four regional legal leadership labs. Flyers and registration material for all these opportunities will be mailed, but if for any reason you miss them, just call the SAI office to register.
Certainly I remember how hard it was for me to feel good about taking
time away from my 700 student building or 1200 employee district for my
own professional development, but more and more my belief follows that as
expressed by Sparks and Hirsh in their ASCD publication "A New Vision
For Staff Development" professional development of school employees
and significant changes in the organizations in which they work are both
required if schools are to adequately prepare students for life in a world
that is becoming increasingly complex. Staff development is at the center
of all education reform strategies without it, such strategies are
merely good ideas that cannot find expression.
I'm sincerely looking forward to seeing you and meeting you as I travel
to our expanded sites.
Top
"We have a problem; let's talk about it."
This, according to Dr. David Mathews, president of the Kettering Foundation, should be preserved as the "quintessential American speech." For as Mathews observes in his numerous writings, the "talking about problems" has formed the basis for establishing rich political traditions: the institution of town meetings and public forums.
Today, with myriad challenges asserting themselves on the horizon of a new century, the evolution of the town meeting into a forum from which the renewal of democracy can spring is at once both stimulating and daunting. Public deliberation has become a buzzword for leaders grasping for solutions to face these challenges. Although hundreds of years old in this country, and a cornerstone of democracy, deliberative forums have increasingly been touted as a panacea for various societal ailments.
But to what end? Does public deliberation produce tangible benefits, "products" so to speak, that are both measurable and usable in reconnecting the public to the democratic process?
Research consortia, including such groups as the National Issues Forum, Public Agenda, the Kettering Foundation, and the Study Circles Resource Center, have found that a number of public deliberation deliverables results from a public truly engaged in the "civil body politick."
One result, as studied by the National Issues Forum, is that the process of public deliberation may help to "jump-start the movement from popular opinion to public judgment." This public judgment is generally thought to be more insightful, reflective and well developed than popular opinion. As is noted, there is a vast difference between public thinking and popular reaction. A thinking citizenry will recognize that changes in a system are both necessary and inevitable, and will need consideration. Popular reaction, of course, is often knee-jerk, with little forethought as to its consequences.
Forum participants have also been shown to change their initial opinions about half the time. That same study, conducted by Public Agenda, also revealed that a larger number had second thoughts about their opinions, although they still remained unchanged. Over three-quarters of participants said that they understood viewpoints they encountered, although they may disagree with them. These changes in attitude about points of view may result in people seeing possibilities for working together which may be absent in traditional, polarizing debates.
Another outcome of a more rigorous public deliberative ethic may be the formation of new knowledge, a "knowledge of the public produced by the public." This type of knowledge, what sociologists call "socially constructed knowledge," is produced when diverse population members first pool then synthesize their unique experiences into a shared framework of understanding, which allows them to use the differences that the individuals bring to the process, rather than just tolerating them.
A fourth product of genuine public deliberation is manifested in the change of the participants themselves: in their habits, their perceptions, and their beliefs. Respondents to surveys have expressed their beliefs that they are more fully able to explore issues with more confidence, and felt that the process has allowed them to come to the awareness that they are public beings and are part of a much larger order of all things public.
The final product, somewhat related to the previous, is the change in attitudes in re of political behavior. Although a single forum isn't likely to alter political beliefs, the incremental evidentiary changes include many who find themselves reading more about politics, looking at issue options in a new way, and exploring more fully the consequences of their individual political behaviors, or lack thereof.
So it is seen that these five very real products: public judgment, different opinions of others' opinions, new knowledge, and changes in both people and their attitudes towards political behavior, can have a profound and lasting effect on the individual, and on the political process and democracy as a whole. Is it any wonder, then, why this process is both approached with trepidation, and embraced with anticipation?
Adapted from The Power of Public Choice. 1996, the Kettering Foundation