May Education
Committee Meeting -all
members of committee in attendance, Board president absent.
Ian Kerr, WCASD Supervisor of Mathematics
and Business Education, gave an informative and interactive presentation,
focusing on the need for “vertical articulation” of “common core state
standards" in math. Question from a Board
member: What is “vertical articulation” in math? Answer: Vertical articulation ensures that
all areas of common core curriculum are being covered, from kindergarten upwards, i.e., vertically, through grade 12. Mr. Kerr affirmed that while the need to
“teach to the test” remains, the “tests are changing”, with 40-45% of Keystone
exam material taught by end of Algebra 1.
So, will such vertical articulation become a reality by spring 2013, the
proposed date for the Keystone Algebra 1 exam?
Most emphatically yes. Why? Because in our district, the “triumvirate of
need”, comprised of involved parents, engaged
students and committed teachers, is
strongly met. Thank you, Mr. Kerr, not
only for the beautiful turn of phrase, but for validating the positive strength
of parents, teachers and students in the district to meet any and all
challenges together.
For more on PA’s adoption of common core state standards: http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/current_initiatives/19720/common_core_state_standards/792440
Dr. Elisha Ozer, WCASD Supervisor of Social Studies and
Library/Media, informed us of the adoption of a new 4th grade
Pennsylvania social studies textbook, Pennsylvania, Our Home, published by
Gibbs Smith. The current textbook has
been in use since 1998. Laudatory
comments from a board member who, as a parent “lived through” the current textbook, and cited not
only the lack of proper representation of women and minorities in PA, but
also the need to better convey economic changes in the state. Another board member questioned the cost and
“shelf-life” of the new text. Book cost
is $46.95 and the district requires 1000 copies. Online access of text is
available and Dr. Ozer is confident the
book will last up to 15 years. The
updated textbook will also help meet
requirements of common core standards.
Of interest here: Policy IFAA “Textbook and Core
Novel/Non-Fiction Selection and Adoption” outlines the selection process of
textbooks. http://documents.wcasd.k12.pa.us/dsweb/Get/Document-879/ifaa.pdf
Dr. Marc Bertrando, Assistant
Superintendent/Secondary Education, provided update on student activity fees. Question from board member: should the board consider adding an “escalation” provision to activity fee policy so as not to
have to revisit fee schedule each year?
General consensus from board and
administration was that the policy will need to be revisited next year to
determine impact of fee schedule, thus no such provision was necessary.
Superintendent Dr. Scanlon addressed yet another second reading of
Policy LEB “PTO/HSA Guidelines” with the
following updates:
All
parents/guardians of students registered at a school in WCASD and all
administrators, faculty and staff employed at that school.
Apparently, this “definition”
was taken directly from the bylaws of a particular district PTO. Public comment: some PTO/HSA require dues in
order to be a “member” while some do not.
In effect, not ALL parents at ALL district schools consider themselves
PTO/HSA “members”. Also questioned was
the inclusion of “administrators, faculty and staff" - are they now covered
under Policy LEB? Conclusion:
since PTO/HSA “memberships” vary throughout the district, why not revise “definition” to
“per individual school PTO/HSA by-laws”
? All agreed…for now.
2. Addition to “#3. Authority”:
4. PTO/HSA
may not use school district property and facilities for political
campaigns.PTO/HSA may host non-partisan
Meet the Candidates events.
This distinction allows the use of
district facilities and property by other “partisan” groups in the community. PTOC can continue to
host Meet the Candidates events. (For those unfamiliar with PTOC, it is an
organization comprised of all district PTO/HSA leadership. In school board election years, PTOC hosts a public Meet the Candidates forum
at a district high school, inviting all prospective school board
candidates. The intent is simple and
most definitely “non-partisan” : afford
all candidates the opportunity to introduce themselves, answer questions
and tell the community why it is they
want to serve on the school board.)
The meeting continues with a bit
of “calling out” by board members, accusations
that “partisan” literature was indeed distributed by PTO/HSA during “the
election”. Public comment volleys back,
asking for evidence of such “partisan” behavior but none provided. Rehashed
arguments from both public and board about
the distinction of actions we take as “individuals” vs. “official
members” of an organization.
In the midst of all the election
“baggage” surrounding discussion of Policy LEB, one BIG question remains
unanswered: does the school board lead by example by adhering to comparable
guidelines such as those proposed for parent organizations in Policy LEB? Well, it
appears they do. On the Pennsylvania School Board Association website, West Chester Area School District is
listed (#404) as “having adopted” the PSBA “Standards for Effective School
Governance”. Included in those
“standards” is the PSBA Code of Conduct . The following
excerpts from that Code are “comparable” to the “non-partisan” provision in
Policy LEB:
·
“Board members
should work together in a spirit of harmony, respect and
cooperation, despite differences of opinion.
·
Personal decisions should be based upon all
sufficient facts, we should vote
our
honest conviction without partisan bias, and we will abide by and uphold
the majority decision of the board.
·
Individuals have no legal
authority outside the meetings of the board, and should
conduct their relationships with all stakeholders and media on this basis.
·
We will not use our positions as school
directors to benefit ourselves or any
individual or agency.”
While one realizes that PSBA
guidelines are no more binding than those set forth in Policy LEB, we can at
least be assured that the community can hold all board members accountable to some ‘professional’
guidelines comparable to Policy LEB.
Check
out the entire PSBA “Standards for Effective School Governance”, including the
Code of Conduct, at http://www.psba.org/issues-advocacy/issues-research/effective-school-governance/ESG-benchmarks_10-06.pdf
May Property & Finance Committee – 3 of 4 committee members
in attendance, Board president absent
Approval of contract with
Berkheimer to collect real estate taxes.
This will save the district a
minimum of $50,000/year in operational costs due to the fact that 2012/13 staff vacancies in the business
office will absorb the tax office staff, thus avoiding furloughs and
unemployment costs. The only “negative”
will be that customers needing to speak
face-to-face with a Berkheimer representative will need to travel to their West
Whiteland office. Fulton Bank will still
accept tax payments.
Approval of Bid Awards - all
approved jobs are “under budget”
Partial roof replacements at two district schools, including “alternate” bids to fix issues that will worsen with time. Board question: Explain need for “alternate” bids in addition to "base" bids. Answer from administration: repairs are less expensive to fix while contractors (in this case, roofers) are mobilized vs. having contractors come back at a later date for a problem that will inevitably worsen in the near future. A clear example was provided to the board: a current “alternate bid” for $112,000 will cost the district approximately $200,000 if pursued 2-3 years from now.
Partial roof replacements at two district schools, including “alternate” bids to fix issues that will worsen with time. Board question: Explain need for “alternate” bids in addition to "base" bids. Answer from administration: repairs are less expensive to fix while contractors (in this case, roofers) are mobilized vs. having contractors come back at a later date for a problem that will inevitably worsen in the near future. A clear example was provided to the board: a current “alternate bid” for $112,000 will cost the district approximately $200,000 if pursued 2-3 years from now.
Additional
lockers are needed at district high school at a cost of approximately
$16,000. Included is “alternate” bid
for $790 for 12 locker doors, some to
replace damaged and some “extra” in case of future damage. Board question: if a student destroys their locker door,
shouldn’t that student be liable for replacement cost? Answer from
administration: students usually do not
destroy their own locker doors, along
with reminder that many community groups
rent our school facilities. In the end,
high school locker doors get damaged and it is prudent forethought to have a
few extra on hand shipped with a large order vs. ordering and shipping
individually at a later date.
Second reading of Policy KE:
Advertising and Sponsorships, with one major addition “Construction and Maintenance of Advertising
on Property” , basically clarifying what entity is responsible for
construction, installation, removal, repair, etc.of advertisements.
Dr. June Garwin, Director of
Information Technology, introduced Policy GAO: Intellectual Property, created
to “clarify ownership of intellectual property produced within the scope of an
employee’s job and to limit where district files may be stored”. There was much board and public comment here
that will be taken into consideration as this new policy evolves.
Ending public comment/questions:
Public: What was the cost of the
recent negotiations and budget videos starring Mr. Carpenter and Mr.
Murphy?
Board answer: The matter will be
discussed “internally” and an answer provided after such discussion. Stay tuned.
Public: Citing and applauding both
the prevailing wage and pension reform resolutions recently adopted by the
board, will the board now adopt a resolution to reform cyber/charter school
funding formulas?
Board answer: Any member of the
board can suggest a resolution, but three members – a “triumvirate, if you
will - must agree to “move forward” with
the resolution. To date, that “triumvirate of need” for cyber/charter school
funding reform has not been met on the board.
No one can dispute the fact that cyber
charters and charters work, sometimes better than traditional public schools,
for many students in this district. No one can dispute the right of any parent
to choose what delivery method of public education works best for their child. However, there are few in the state that will dispute
the fact that the current funding formula for cyber/charter schools is in desperate
need of reform. In 2010, Auditor General Jack Wagner warned the PA General Assembly that the charter/cyber funding
problem was “accelerating at an unaffordable rate”. Wagner is a supporter of charter schools,
having voted for the original charter bill in 1997 while serving as a state
senator. However, he believes that the funding method for charter and cyber
charter schools is a “bad deal for taxpayers”:
"The big problem is that we are trying to finance 21st century education with 19th century methods. With Pennsylvania still mired in its greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression, we can’t afford to be wasting precious financial resources on schools whose costs have absolutely no basis whatsoever on what is actually needed to educate our children." *
Perhaps another, admittedly simpler, way to look at it: if our
1998 Pennsylvania textbooks are in need of updating, isn’t it time to give our 1997
charter funding formula serious review?
Wagner’s 2010 cyber/charter funding report: http://www.auditorgen.state.pa.us/reports/performance/special/specharterfundingreport100510.pdf
Pennsylvania
School Board Association sample resolution for school boards,“Reform of the Cyber Charter and Charter School
Funding formula”: http://www.psba.org/issues-advocacy/issues-research/cyber-charter-schools/
My takeaway's from the meeting:
ReplyDeletePerhaps Mrs. Snook should move to the Property & Finance committee as none of her questions demonstrate any concern for "education" or "pupil services" (paraphrasing):
1)are we sure we need a new social studies book when history doesn't change?
2)shouldn't the Activity Fee policy have an escalation clause so we don't need to readdress this every year to increase the fees?
3)shouldn't students be responsible for replacing their own locker doors if they've been damaged?
Community Outreach Liaison would definitely not be the place to move her, however, given her outright accusation that PTO/HSA members, acting in their capacity of those roles, campaigned for/endorsed specific candidates on school grounds using school resources. Yet when asked for specific examples of this she was not able or willing to produce any. Funny, too, that as preoccupied as she is with the cost of things, she showed no interest in the cost of the videos that the board produced on the topics of the budget and negotiations when that question was asked.
Clearly, the changes to policy LEB regarding acceptable behavior by PTO/HSA members was changed due to the fact that the general statement that school facilities can not be used for political purposes had to be removed since the district does in fact rent out school facilities to political parties. So, instead, the definition of PTO/HSA (and as a result the rules established in this policy) was broadened to not only include the officers of these groups, but every parent/guardian in the district. Maybe some people haven't paid their dues. Maybe some people don't WANT to be members of the PTO. How can someone be assumed to be part of a group and subject to rules that limit their rights as a member of that group, when they haven't even consciously joined it? And why is it ok for Mrs. Snook to ask her fellow Republican Committee people to attend board meetings to support "their position" and Mrs. Adsett to make an election day robocall representing herself as a board member and asking people to vote for the candidates she supports, but parents can not circulate information on pro-public-education activities because the board considers them "partisan". They are only partisan if you are against them, and isn't a public school board director being against public education an oxymoron?
Why was Mr. Carpenter dancing around the question of the board passing a resolution asking for changes to the charter school funding methodology? Doing so is not saying one does not believe charter schools should exist--I think we all acknowledge that there are some good charter schools out there and that they are better learning environments for some children. It's about the manner in which they are funded which is completely extraneous to their cost structure, especially in the case of cybers and with special ed formulas. It's a simple question--do you or do you not see issues with the way they are funded and believe the current methodology is financially damaging to the public schools? Citing parliamentary procedure rules about who can request a resolution for committee or make a motion for consideration during a board meeting is nothing but evading the question of where this board stands on the issue.
Lastly, somewhat surprisingly no one asked a question about the Keystone to Education grant that the district declined. It would most definitely have been fitting for it to be mentioned by the Chairs of the Education or P&F committees, or both, but the board continues to ignore the issue in the hope that it will fade quietly into the sunset.