Thinking Out Loud

February Pupil Services Committee Meeting:
Committee members in attendance: Chair Linda Raileanu, Maria Pimley, Susan Tiernan, 

Heidi Adsett

Board members in attendance:  President Vince Murphy, Vice-President Karen Miller, 

Ed Coyle

Guidance Software Recommendation:

Supervisor of Pupil Services Dr. Salsbury informs us that, since 2004, the District has been using the COIN inventory, career guidance software with limitations such as: lack of current employment statistics,  transcripts can only be mailed, data must be calculated manually, no interface with District scheduling system (Power School), limited number of career assessments, and no capability to track students once they are in college.

In light of these limitations, a guidance committee was formed 2 years ago and has been working to address areas of concern. The goals of the committee:

• Determine the best way to match student interest with college program
• Determine the best way to gather data from students after they have started college
• Determine a way to provide additional help with PSAT preparation

The outcome of this committee was the recommendation to replace COIN with Naviance, a college and career readiness platform that helps connect academic achievement to post-secondary goals. Some benefits of Naviance over COIN: students can view the status of application materials, enhanced communication between students and counseling staff, ability to track and measure outcome of alumni, college and career readiness design program with lessons for grades 6-12, adaptive learning SAT prep tool and Power School data can be downloaded into system on weekly basis. Ideally,  Naviance will enable completion of a baseline data report, tracking where students are applying and being accepted.   267 districts in PA now use Naviance and the District hopes to have COIN completely replaced with the system by 2014-15. The cost for first year is $36,000, and approximately $20,000 in  following years.  Dr. Ranieri tells us this amount was included in the budget.  Dr. Pimley asks if Naviance has the ability to track trade/technical colleges and  we are told that such institutions, such as Kaplan University,  are indeed part of the database.  

Guidance counselors from Rustin and East were in attendance to speak about Naviance.  One counselor tells a story of a colleague who,  while visiting the veterinary school at University of NC, actually downloaded a video of the campus to send to an interested student.  Also interesting is a brief discussion of  GPAs which,  like school districts, are apparently not created equal.  For example, we are told that a 3.5 in WC is not necessarily a 3.5 in Unionville Chadds Ford.  With Naviance, a student’s GPA can be tracked/compared (anonymously) to other students in our area who have been admitted to particular universities, thus showing the probability of admittance.  In addition, a counselor offers the website  www.fairtest.org,  as a resource where students can access a list of colleges/universities where admission is not always dependent on test scores.  From Fairtest,  “Over 815 four-year colleges and universities across the U.S., acting on the belief that   "test scores do not equal merit" do not use the SAT or ACT to make admissions decisions about a substantial number of their incoming freshmen classes.”  (See the  October blog for more on this superb site.)

In the end, the Naviance PowerPoint presentation reminded us that the implementation of this system fulfills one of the school board’s student achievement goals for 2012-13 school year: “The District will establish a relationship with the nation’s top universities”.   Kudos to the Board, but let us not forget the positive input of parents, together with the two-year commitment of guidance counselors and administrators that, in reality, brought Naviance to the district for the benefit of all students. We are grateful to all involved.       

West Chester Communities that Care Drug Free Communities Grant application:

Some background:  At January’s Pupil Services meeting,  West Chester Communities that Care approached the Board to renew a 2-year grant from the PA Liquor Control Board.  CTC raises awareness of the impact of underage drinking in our community and uses the grant money for  youth leadership programs, education and  social norms campaigns.  At the January meeting, Dr. Ranieri explained to the Board  that the District serves as  fiscal agent for Communities that Care and, in order to comply with new Board Policy DFF of August 2012, the District must seek approval for all grants over $10,000.  It is also explained that, once received, the CTC grant  will simply “pass through”, having no impact on the budget. The application was approved.

This month,  Communities that Care returns to ask approval, via the District as fiscal agent, for the continuation of a 5 year grant (up to $25,000/year) from Drug Free Communities (DFC). CTC currently receives funding from DFC to support their efforts to prevent and reduce substance abuse among youth, so this request is more a re-authorization to continue that funding.  President Vince Murphy asks how this grant will impact district budget.  As she did in January,  Dr. Ranieri explains that the District serves as fiscal agent for CTC, making the grant money merely a pass-through with no impact on the budget.  How soon we forget.

February Education Committee Meeting

Committee members in attendance: Chair Maria Pimley, Linda Raileanu, Susan Tiernan, 

Heidi Adsett

Board members in attendance:  President Vince Murphy, Vice-President Karen Miller, 

Sean Carpenter, Ed Coyle

K-12 Science Overview:

Paul Joyce, Supervisor of Science, gives an enthusiastic overview of science in the District. At the elementary level, he notes the use of all-inclusive science kits available to all teachers and customized textbooks for grades 2-4.  Maria Pimley notes that she heard , admittedly “anecdotally”, that science kits were not being used in all elementary classes.  Mr. Joyce comments that while some teachers may have been slower to realize the all-inclusive nature of the kits than others, once they were used, kit use was consistent.  

Next came  some self-professed  “thinking out loud” from two board members.   Dr. Pimley admitted to and apologized for baring her  thought process, fondly recalling her completion of a cell poster for a 4^th grade science assignment.  She continued, noting the absence of  the  “biological sciences” in current elementary science lessons, wondering if the reason for the absence is that students at that level cannot cognitively grasp such concepts.  Her thoughts are basically  affirmed by Mr. Joyce.  Now it is Ms. Raileanu’s turn to ponder aloud, apparently attempting to connect the earlier discussion of  the Drug Free Communities grant to the current science discussion.  She asks Mr. Joyce if “we” could possibly  link the study of plants in school to the “toxic” nature of drugs.  She suggests that perhaps in the “younger grades” , “we” could “subliminally” put messages in the curriculum about what “wonderful things” plants are while simultaneously warning children of their potential “toxic” side.  Ms. Raileanu believes it is  “our job”  to disseminate such messages.   Mr. Joyce admits he has never thought of such a connection but promises to look into it.   

While I was certainly relieved to hear that the person in charge of the District’s science curriculum, i.e., Mr. Joyce,  had never thought of using “subliminal” messages in student lessons, I was dismayed that a school board member, regardless of their professed expertise in the area of science, would find it an acceptable suggestion.  While one can  respect the fact  that Ms. Raileanu is a scientist/teacher/healthcare advocate, one must also respect that Mr. Joyce is an employed expert in his field who continues to serve on numerous PA Department of Education state science committees. With that in mind, is it not Mr. Joyce who is perhaps better suited to the “job” of crafting District science programs than any member of the Board?   Let's just chalk this one  up to a “thinking out loud” faux pas and move on.

Mr. Carpenter asks how PLCs (Professional Learning Communities-check out September blog  for background) are being received by science instructors.  Mr. Joyce reports that the teachers feel that PLCs have a positive impact on students, and admits most issues are “logistical”.   Dr. Fraser agrees that work is ongoing with PLC implementation in all areas, but the “game plan” is to have that accomplished by next year.    

2013-14 School Calendar:

Director of Elementary Education Dr. Missett presents the first reading of 2013-14 school year calendar.  Of note is a shortened spring break, now officially referred to as Easter break.  We are told that the Thursday, Friday, Monday break comes in response to parent surveys, the results of which were close.  Mr. Coyle comments that he has heard some parents express concern that student groups historically use the week of “spring break” for travel.  Dr. Missett is aware of that concern and has hopes that those trips will begin to occur during summer months.  Parents will continue to be surveyed about the break for the next two years.  And per Board Policy AEA,  school will begin after Labor Day for the next two years.  Fun fact: there is currently a bill sitting in the House  Committee of Tourism & Recreational Development, HB75, that would make it a law for schools to begin after Labor Day.

Update on Standardized Testing

Dr. Fraser reports that the PA Department of Education has delayed implementation of the revised grades 3-5 PSSA until 2014-15.  These revised tests were aligned to PA Common Core and originally intended for implementation in 2013-14. Dr. Fraser sees this as a positive, giving us more time to prepare. We are also informed the PDE has asked permission of the US Department of Education to change the 2012-13 Annual Measurable Objectives (targets needed to be reached to make AYP) at the high school level only.  The 2012-13 AMOs for Math are 89% and 91% for Reading.  PDE has requested of the US DOE to change Math (the Algebra 1 Keystone) to 39% and Reading (the Literature Keystone) to 50%. Why? The Keystone exams are more rigorous than the PSSAs and the lower percentages accurately reflect the percentage of students in PA who achieved proficiency on the 2011 Keystone exams.  Dr. Fraser reminds us of the article he distributed in November concerning lower test scores in Kentucky resulting from Common Core implementation, noting that PA’s  recent request to “reset” AYP targets is not surprising.  

PA School Performance Profile

Dr. Fraser introduces a school rating profile, the PA School Performance Profile,  to be rolled out by PDE this spring, using data from 2011-12 school year.   

Why the profile?

• Parents will have comparative measure for district of residence, neighboring districts and all districts across the state
• Provide information about academic performance measure of schools, career and technical centers, cyber charters and charters in PA
• Resource for schools to communicate/compare/analyze performance as related to achievement and encourage best practice

In addition, the PA School Performance Profile will contain the building level data necessary as a component of PA’s new teacher evaluation system, which is part of Act 82 of 2012, originally the omnibus School Code bill HB 1901 passed with last year’s budget.  One may recall the controversy surrounding this particular portion of HB1901 due to the fact that, in the final version of the bill,  charter schools would not be subject to the “educator evaluation” language of the bill.  At that time, the omission was justified by many who believed that charter educator accountability would be addressed in charter/cyber reform bills in the fall of last year, but that has yet to happen. For teachers and principals, Act 82 requires 50% of the overall rating to be based on student performance; for non-teaching professional employees (educational specialists), the bill requires 20% of the overall rating to be based on student performance. The evaluation tools* will be used for classroom teachers in the 2013-14 school year, with rating systems for principals and  non-teaching professionals proposed for use in the 2014-15 school year.  Intrigued?   Then why not plan to attend the March 11th Education Committee meeting where Dr. Fraser promises a more detailed presentation  on the system.     See you there. 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

*The rating system is  weighted as follows:

• 50% based on observation and evidence: planning/preparation, classroom environment, instruction and professional responsibilities of teacher
•  50% based on multiple measures of student performance:

Ø  15% building level data: school-wide student improvement on PSSA performance, PVAAS (PA Value Added Assessment System) growth, graduation rate, promotion rate, attendance, AP course participation, SAT/PSAT data

Ø  15% teacher specific data: student improvement attributable to teacher on PSSA performance, PVAAS growth, IEP growth of special education students

Ø  20% elective data: locally developed/selected by school district from a list approved by PDE. Includes district-designed measures, national standardized tests, student projects

Act 82 requires the Department of Education to develop the evaluation tool, and directs the State Board of Education to make required changes and modifications to the tool through the regulatory process. When an employee receives a "needs improvement" rating twice within a ten year period, the overall rating of the employee will be considered unsatisfactory. An employee cannot receive a "failing" rating based solely on test scores, and an employee who receives a "needs improvement" or "failing" rating must participate in a performance improvement plan. Act 82 also states that an employee's rating form shall not be subject to disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law.  

West Chester Needs a Plan, Not a Wing & a Prayer

January 28th Property and Finance Committee Meeting

In attendance:  Committee Chair Sean Carpenter and members Ed Coyle, Karen Miller, and Maureen Snook (newly placed on this committee as of the December Organization Meeting).  Also in attendance were Board President Vince Murphy, Linda Raileanu, Sue Tiernan, and Heidi Adsett.  Maria Pimley did not attend.

The meeting was relatively short, one of the shortest that I can recall in a while, and will likely be remembered more for what was not said than for what was.  Discussion centered around the 13/14 Budget and related matters.  Also covered were the awarding of bids for the East Bradford Elementary renovations, a resolution related to the collection of taxes for the district, and a proposal for civil engineering services to develop the Rustin excess land prior to its sale.  All of these items passed via a 4-0 vote.

Regarding the Rustin land, apparently the board has been discussing its sale for some time in executive session, and this was the first time we were hearing of the plan to develop it prior to sale.  Mr. Campbell explained the belief that the land would be more profitable if they first developed it since they anticipate their prospective buyers to be home developers; they estimate the additional profit after all costs to be an additional $400k.  Therefore, the board voted to spend approximately $148k for this process.  Whether this project includes all of the excess Rustin land or only part of it was not discussed and was not clear from the materials provided.

Dr. Moore reviewed the key changes to the current and future year financial projections.  For 12/13 our expense projection decreased $200k and our revenues increased by $1037k; the increase in revenue was predominantly due to transfer taxes (home sales) and transportation subsidy from the state.  The impact of these positive changes increases our fund balance which has been designated to offset any needed 13/14 tax increase.  We also experienced a $109k decrease in debt service due to refinancing that has been moved to our capital reserve.  The 13/14 forecast has been adjusted as well due to the impact of the settlement of 2 labor contracts and the fact that model projections for next year (based on standard %s) have been replaced with actual budget projections from the various cost centers.  These resulted in $661k lower expenses and $752k higher revenues.

Following the financial highlights, there was a resolution requiring board approval.  This is the Resolution of Act One Inflation Index Budget Limit which is an official commitment by the Board to not increase taxes for the 13/14 year above the Act 1 Index of 1.7%.  The Act 1 Index is the highest amount the state allows districts to raise taxes, however there are certain exceptions which some districts qualify for that would allow them to raise taxes higher.  For the 13/14 school year WCASD qualifies for ~$2.5M in exceptions, predominantly due to drastically increasing PSERS (retirement) costs.  The committee voted 4-0 to not take the exceptions.

Currently there are designated funds that will partially address the deficits forecasted for the next several years as the PSERS cost grows and the tax base remains flat.  The current projected shortfall for the 13/14 school year is $4.3M.  A tax increase in the amount of the 1.7% Act 1 limit would eliminate $2.5M of that deficit, however there has been no discussion of passing a tax increase so reliance on one to partially offset the shortfall is premature.  Overall, there are several things which bothered me about this vote and the associated "discussion":

• there was no dialogue among the committee members prior to this vote, not a single word by any member explaining why they were in support of this resolution
• the following potential issues were raised to the committee by members of the public:
• the largest expense in our budget is teacher salaries, and as everyone knows we have not reached an agreement with the teacher's union; the current forecast does not include any salary increase, and given the outcome of negotiations is unknown, that could be an area of risk
• the Governor has cut funding to public schools (if you exclude increases to PSERS  which is a pass through cost and does not allow for any additional spending) for the last 2 years and we do not know what next year's budget will bring (although a preliminary budget was since presented, Governor Corbett predicated it on the state legislature passing pension reform)
• even with a tax increase, we will still need to make some cuts to balance the budget, yet no current program changes are up for discussion at any committee level (even though numerous items remain from the Budget Task Forces that could be considered); given the budget calendar calls for preliminary adoption of the budget at the April Board Meeting and final adoption in May
• reserving the Act 1 exceptions in no way commits the board to actually using them, so the board could always defer including those exceptions in any future millage increase; therefore, there is really no downside to taking them, and by doing so the district has some "insurance" to fall back on given all the uncertainties it is facing  
• while the 13/14 projected budget shortfall is manageable at $4.3M, the following 3 years are currently projecting cumulative budget shortfalls over $40M (excluding any tax increase) which is well beyond our current fund balances

The response from the committee to these issues did not instill a sense that the district's risks are being actively planned for and that a long term strategy exists. Regarding the remaining Budget Task Force items, the response was that all committees are aware of the remaining items and are free to pursue any that fall within their area of responsibility; translation:  nothing is being considered either as a budget balancing measure or simply as a cost cutting exercise, and none of the committee chairs present cared to comment on any of them.  To the issue of risk to state funding if pension reform does not occur, we were told that if there is no pension reform we will not be the only district in trouble.  Other concerns were met with "we'll have to wait and see what happens".

And so, I left this meeting feeling that one or both of two things are happening:  1)the board is not sharing their long term plan with the public and/or 2)the board is not giving adequate attention to long term planning given possible risks.  Neither of these make me feel comfortable as either a parent or a taxpayer, and I can only hope that we learn more in February.  The board may very well be planning to offset any 13/14 budget shortfall with fund balance rather than increasing millage or pursuing any cost cutting measures.  That will certainly make people happy as we enter the next school board election cycle, but is it sound long term financial planning?

The following articles provide more information on Act 1 exceptions for WCASD as well as other districts:
http://www.dailylocal.com/article/20130131/NEWS01/130139904/west-chester-schools-no-tax-hikes-above-act-1-index
 
http://www.unionvilletimes.com/?p=13359
 

http://www.dailylocal.com/article/20130129/NEWS01/130129539/t-e-board-caps-tax-for-2013-14-approves-security-hire

Although this was not discussed at the P&F meeting, the district had its second hearing with Whole Life Charter which is looking to set up a school for special needs children in the area and needs approval from a school district to do so.  It appears that there is strong parent support for the school, however concerns on the part of WCASD administrators that the school may not be poised for success.  You can read more about that here:
http://www.dailylocal.com/article/20130207/OPINION03/130209698/proposed-new-charter-school-would-be-drain-on-district#full_story

Additionally, as noted above, Governor Corbett released the first draft of the state budget earlier this month.  While we were happy not to see any additional cuts, the Basic Education and Special Education line items were flat funded at the same level received last year. Since many of the costs in those areas have since increased, the Governor is leaving the responsibility for covering theose on the shoulders of the local taxpayer.  We will be reporting more on the state budget in the coming months as we learn how it will impact WCASD.

Stop the Insanity

Dear Parents and Friends of the West Chester Area School District,

West Chester VOTE, a community based citizens group, comprised of residents like yourself, has been committed since its inception to primarily protect the education of our children and our property values by encouraging the continued need for high quality public education.  We understand that many WCASD residents have received emails from a Pennsbury School District School Board Director from Yardley, Bucks County and founder of an organization to eliminate teacher strikes.  He falsely claims that WC Vote is a union front.  School Board Director elections will be happening this year and this interloper would like to muddy the field with his political rhetoric.  WC Vote will steadfastly advocate for the best affordable public education in our District regardless of baseless claims.  Let’s remember, this person is not a taxpayer in West Chester nor does he educate children in our district.  He has no vested interest here. 

 As our community prepares for the challenges ahead, show these outsiders and special interest groups that our strength cannot be threatened or challenged by those who have no vested interest in the well being of our community. Our mission is to advocate for public education in the West Chester Area School District and to support candidates who will protect our property values and educational and enrichment programs.

What Just Happened Here?

November 19th Property & Finance Meeting

In attendance: Committee Chair Sean Carpenter and members Ed Coyle, Karen Miller, and Linda Raileanu.  Also in attendance were Board President Vince Murphy, Sue Tiernan, Maria Pimley, Maureen Snook, and Heidi Adsett.

The meeting started ordinarily enough, albeit with a larger audience than usual.  PFM Group Inc. made a presentation outlining the opportunity for the district to refund a series of bonds issued in 2006 in order to take advantage of low interest rates.  It is estimated that by refunding these bonds early, the district can achieve approximately $365k of savings net of any costs (although actual amounts will vary with the specifics of the market on any given day).  The committee recommended approval of the refund with a minimum required savings of 4% and, assuming approval at the full board meeting, the sale should occur in December or January.

The budget forecast model discussion centered on revenue and expense projection changes for the 12/13 and 13/14 school years:

• 2012/13
• $250k lower salary expense for Maintenance and Custodial staff; the Facilities team currently has 10 vacancies and expects to realize additional salary savings this year
• $120k lower salary expense for vacant Secondary teacher positions
• $300k lower variable rate debt expense that will be transferred to the capital reserve fund
• 2013/14
• Secondary staffing projections are reduced by 7.7 FTEs; however, these positions will be offset by 1)three middle school math resources targeted to address the requirements of the Keystone Tests, 2)one additional elementary teacher dictated by expected enrollment requirements, and 3)three additional special ed resources to address an additional multiple disabilities section, an additional enrollment driven special ed classroom, and a special ed liaison position; the net result is a reduction of .7 FTE for a savings of $66k salary related expense
• due to appeals-driven changes in assessed real estate value, the district's tax base has been reduced by ~$25M which has resulted in a reduction of $467k of projected real estate revenue; these residential appeals have been higher than those experienced in recent years

John Scully gave an overview of the National School Lunch Program and its impact on the WCASD Food Service Program.  Children who live in poverty qualify for free or reduced lunches, and in order for the district to qualify to receive federal reimbursement for these lunches, it must serve meals that meet the nutritional requirements of the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010.  This act resulted in the first major modifications to school lunch requirements in 15 years, and includes changes such as an increase in the minimum servings of fruits and vegetables, minimum serving sizes for meats/associated products, whole grain requirements, fat and sodium limits, and maximum number of calories.   The district successfully implemented the required changes in the 12/13 year and as a result has qualified for a higher reimbursement rate.

The good news is that the meals being served to our children are now healthier.  The bad news, which is not news to anyone with kids, is the fact that children tend to like the taste of non-healthy foods and reject those that are better for them.  As a result, a lot of waste is being experienced as children take their required fruits and vegetables but do not necessarily eat them (there was some discussion of donating uneaten items, but preliminary investigation on this topic raised issues of liability should there be a problem with any of the food--how sad that the potential to feed volumes of hungry people is thwarted by the litigious nature of our society).  There has also been a decrease in the number of school lunches purchased.  The district could certainly disregard the requirements, however that would preclude us from receiving federal reimbursement which would be quite costly.  In addition to the discussion on the waste, there was discussion on the caloric restrictions and whether all children were getting enough to eat.  Personally, I thought the topic got more attention than it deserved--if parents don't like what the cafeteria is serving they are free to pack their child a lunch or extra snacks.

Kevin Campbell and former WC VOTE candidate Gary Bevilacqua reviewed plans to construct a concession stand at Rustin High School.  The concession stand was to be built as part of the original high school construction project, but was cut due to budgetary restraints.  The Rustin Booster Alliance is now requesting approval to have it constructed at negligible cost to the district.  Students from trade and technical schools will donate the labor, and the needed brick is leftover from the original construction.  The only actions requested of the district are to submit the permits (estimated cost of $200) and to ensure that the construction is completed properly.  The result will be the donation to the district of an asset worth approximately $65k, hopefully in the fall.  At that time the structure will be usable, although fundraising will then be required to purchase the internal equipment needed to prepare and sell food in the new stand.

The last agenda item, and the one people were most anxious to hear, was the presentation of the recent analysis performed by the reconvened Space Consolidation Task Force.  This committee, which was originally established in the fall of 2011, was tasked with gathering and reviewing data to determine whether WCASD should move from a 10 to 9 elementary school plan, and if so which school(s) should be closed and should a new school be built in place of 2 existing ones.  Word was already out that East Bradford, Fern Hill, and Glen Acres were the targeted schools for possible closure, and so many of the members of the audience were parents of children who attend those schools who were not happy about the prospect of their neighborhood school being closed.

In addition to the detailed worksheets and financial analysis pages provided in the board packets, Dr. Scanlon reviewed a presentation meant to summarize the findings.  He discussed the 25 years of birth rate data that the district has, as well as data on new construction, movements of families in and out of the district, and loss of students to charter and other alternative schools, all of which suggested that the number of classrooms needed in the district would go down from 223 to 219 by 2015.  There was additional analysis of renovation and construction costs under the different scenarios (a closed school would no longer need to be renovated, but other schools would need additional capacity built to absorb those students; a new school would need to be built) and the associated debt service costs related to borrowing.  There was also an estimated $1.6M/year in estimated savings factored in with the closure of a school due to anticipated expense reductions for various salary (e.g., principal, secretary, librarian, specials teachers, custodians, etc) and facilities (utilities, improvements, etc.) costs.

Many people spoke up when the floor was opened for questions and comments, and I don't believe I heard anyone speak in support of the endeavor.  People questioned how accurate the future estimated student population numbers were, as well as the $1.6M in estimated yearly expenses.  Others talked about how large some of the elementary schools might have to become to house the displaced students, the emotional impact of closing a neighborhood school, and the significant number of children who would need to be moved (between 22-33% of children relocated with a 9 school plan vs. 7% with straight redistricting for a 10 school plan). 

Former board member Terri Clark, who you may recall had spoken out against closing a school at the last P&F meeting, spoke at length about her concern that the proper amount of due diligence had not been done to make this decision; I again found it puzzling that Mrs. Clark was getting involved in school board business and especially that she was speaking out AGAINST an initiative that might save money given her voting record while on the board.  Maria Pimley also spoke passionately about the emotional toll of closing a school and moving so many students, as well as concern that the basic infrastructure of the existing schools (parking, cafeteria, and gymnasium size, for example) may not be sufficient to support the increase in students.  Linda Raileanu, a member of the P&F Committee, stated that she would have to see compelling data in order to support the closure of a school, and she just did not see it.

What happened next was abrupt and surprising (apparently to the other board members as well based upon the looks on some of their faces)...a sort of, if you blinked you might have missed it, and even hearing it you questioned if you heard correctly.  Sean Carpenter ended the comment period, and polled the other 3 members of the committee on whether they thought the presentation should be repeated at the 11/26 Board Meeting and a vote taken in December.  All 4 members voted that they did not think that the discussion should continue.  Dr. Scanlon then felt the need to clarify, as right he should given the impact of that decision, that as a result the board was choosing to continue plans for renovations and redistricting under a 10 school plan, to which Mr. Carpenter replied yes.

Many parents got up and shared their relief and elation at the decision, one of them cheering "Sean Carpenter for president!".  I sat there for a few seconds feeling very confused about what I had just witnessed.  I wholeheartedly agree that the data provided did not nearly present enough clarity or conviction to make a decision of such large impact and emotional baggage.  But did ANYONE think that such a decision could be given proper consideration in a 2 month period?  It took us 2 years to plan and roll out new bell schedules and bus changes, and we were going to properly substantiate and sell the decision to close an entire school in 2 months? 

It was never clear to me why we were going down this path, at least at this point in time.  The possibility of closing a school was laid out in December of 2011, and at that time we knew that East Bradford was a key component of such a plan, and that it was next on the schedule for renovation after Westtown-Thornbury and Penn Wood.  So if we really wanted to give thoughtful consideration to doing this, why not do it then? Or, if for whatever reason it was not feasible to analyze this option until this point in time, then why not put the East Bradford renovations on hold so that enough time could be spent to allow the community to feel that a thorough and thoughtful decision had been made without a December deadline looming over our heads?  And who was the champion for closing a school anyway?  Although I suspect that there were some on the board and members of the administration who would have been happy to see a school close, not one board member emerged as an enthusiast for this endeavor.  It felt as if some people believed it made sense financially to do so, but they were not willing to stand up and defend their convictions.  Aversion to looking like the bad guy?  Fear of bad PR before the upcoming Primary in 2013?  As far as I can tell all we did was start down a path that no one felt comfortable saying not to go down, yet no one had the courage to follow to completion--an exercise of doing it just to say it was done, knowing that the journey would never be completed.  A lot of people were upset by the prospect of their school closing, and a lot of time was spent doing this analysis, and I can't help feeling that it was all for nothing but show.

Lingering

November 12 Pupil Services Committee Meeting
Committee members in attendance:  Committee Chair Dr. Maria Pimley, Susan Tiernan

Committee members not in attendance:  Heidi Adsett, Maureen Snook
Non-committee members in attendance:  Vince Murphy, Ed Coyle, Linda Raileanu

 

Gifted Update:

Pupil Services Director Dr. Ranieri provided an update on District Gifted program, specifically the impact of changes made to Gifted Resource teacher schedules.  One will remember the Gifted Program was analyzed during Budget Task Force II and changes were made to the allocation of Gifted Resource Teachers (GRTs) at the elementary level.  While the meeting agenda specified this month’s  presentation was intended as an update only, many in attendance had questions pertaining to the origin of the current system and conveyed they were never informed of changes. 

Pupil Services Director Dr. Ranieri and Pupil Services Committee Chair Dr. Pimley reminded all in attendance that lengthy discussions were held in the spring before any of these changes were made.  Dr. Pimley directed all to reference committee meeting notes on website from spring 2012 for history of changes. ( April 2012 Board Packet  contains pertinent minutes)  Dr. Ranieri admitted she expected many questions and assured Gifted parents in attendance their questions would be addressed and information posted to the website. She also encouraged  parents with concerns pertaining to their individual child to contact their school’s GRT directly.

Returning to the update on the  impact of Gifted program revisions, Mrs. Tiernan asks Dr. Ranieri what a typical day looks like for the  “shared” Elementary  GRTs. Elementary GRT Deb Smith was in attendance and provided an enthusiastic report, explaining in detail her rotation schedule for schools and reporting the current system is a great way to see all kids and work closely with teachers.  Dr. Pimley questions if building Instructional Coaches ever supplement the work of GRTs. Ms. Smith explains that when instructional coaches and teachers contact her with specific student needs, she sends targeted work via  PDF file to teacher/coach, who can then set up student learning centers in classrooms.  Thus, student learning is not interrupted during the GRT’s rotating absence and GRT, classroom teacher and instructional coach enhance their collaborative relationship in support of student learning.

Reports that things are going well at middle and high school levels also:  On the high school level, note is made of the positive addition of Deb Tobin as GRT. Ms. Tobin, who has a background in business, has a caseload of 45 and offers students  many opportunities for job-shadowing.  Of note, Ms. Tobin will attend a conference at the University of PA, the focus of which is to encourage more women to pursue careers in computer science.

Top Universities summary of process :

One assumes summary is based on the following  Board goal/assessment:

Board goal-The District will establish a relationship with the nation’s top universities.
Assessment - A baseline data report will be made tracking what colleges students are applying and where they are being accepted. Develop a survey for recent graduates.

Dr. Scanlon notes Princeton Review college rankings, stressing the importance of  making sure WCASD students are being matched not only with top universities, but with the right programs. He also emphasizes the need to continue to monitor, through surveys, student performance while in college programs. 

Act 120 Concussion Policy and District protocol:

First Reading of Policy JGFH: Concussion Management - The policy covers athletic activities outside of school day and is based on PA Safety in Sports Act of 2011, introduced by Representative Tom Briggs from Montgomery County. 

Mr. Coyle questions if this policy should cover all athletics, not just those “outside” school day: for example, what about gym?   Dr. Ranieri states we would then have to get baseline concussion tests for all students, adding that the policy is intended to address/implement the Safety in Sports Act, so to include all students and/or change the language may “muddy the waters” of the intent of the law.

Linda Raileanu, speaking as a neuro-nurse and specialist in this area, relates the story of her daughter who had a non-sports related concussion.   In light of that possibility, she questions whether teachers might also be trained to at least recognize head trauma/neurological  symptoms.  Dr. Scanlon is confident in the fact that WCASD teachers are able to recognize when their students, after experiencing head trauma, are behaving out of the ordinary and would not hesitate in sending student to nurse.

Dr. Pimley suggests that all schools be required to hold informational meetings for parents prior to athletic season: the current wording notes that schools “may” hold meeting.   She also suggested that parents be required to attend such a meeting and sign off if they choose not to attend.

November 12 Education Committee Meeting

Committee Members in attendance:  Dr. Maria Pimley (chairing in the absence of Mrs. Adsett), Sue Tiernan 
Committee Members not in attendance:  Committee Chair Heidi Adsett, Maureen Snook
Non-committee members in attendance:  Vince Murphy, Ed Coyle, Linda Raileanu

Field Trip Updates:

At the August Education Committee meeting, Mrs. Snook requested a study of District field trip costs and it was unfortunate that Mrs. Snook was not in attendance to hear analysis provided by Dr. Missett.  In 2011-12, educational excursions cost the district $73,614.49 and educational competitions cost the district $75,805.69, with funds covering mostly substitutes and transportation.  As of November, 2012-13 expenses are $36,579.28.  Dr. Missett was asked one question:  Does each building have its own field trip budget?  Yes, and if there is excess, it is up to the principal of the building to decide how to spend.

Common Core assessment update:

Curriculum Director Dr. Fraser provided 11/2/12 article from Education Week, entitled “Scores Drop on Kentucky’s Common Core Aligned Tests”

From the article:

“Results from new state tests in Kentucky - the first in the nation explicitly tied to the Common Core State Standards - show that the share of students scoring “proficient” or better in reading and math dropped by roughly a third or more in elementary and middle school the first year the tests were given.”

In 2010, Kentucky was the first state to adopt the common core in English Language Arts and Mathematics, so the state’s  performance is viewed as a “predictor” for other states.  Dr. Fraser explains the significance of this article for WCASD, stressing the rigor our students and staff will need to adhere to in order to prepare for common core aligned assessments.  He is confident we are on track and reminds us all that the District’s Professional Learning Communities (see September blog for PLC discussion)  will play a key role in helping staff prepare WCASD students for the upcoming assessments .

The article also states that  Kentucky expects backlash from parents and other stakeholders over the drop in scores, and has not only enlisted its Chamber of Commerce but has also received some help, via grants, from  National PTA, to counter expected negative publicity.  Mr. Coyle questions  if WCASD might find grant money or enlist the local Chamber’s help should news of our scores be less than positive.

English Language Arts Update:

English Language Arts Director Dr. Susan Elliott provides comparative examples of questions from PSSA and Keystone exams. Dr. Elliot points out that the new assessments place greater emphasis on critical thinking skills, grammar and the ability to construct and comprehend written arguments.   For example, the  “old” test sample question asked us to find the definition of “linger” in a text excerpt, supplying four one-word answer choices.   The “new” sample test question compels us to infer the meaning of “linger”, forcing us to identify the text fragment that best conveys the definition. 

 Of note and in full support of Dr. Elliott’s superb presentation is another  Education Week article by  Catherine Gewertz, entitled “Common Standards Drive New Approaches to Reading”. Gewertz admits the “shifts in literacy instruction envisioned by the common core are among the biggest in recent decades”.

The article quotes David Pearson,  professor of language and literacy at the University of California, Berkeley,  who states the literacy standards   " have the potential to lead the parade in a different direction: toward taking as evidence of your reading ability not your score on a specific skill test—or how many letter sounds you can identify or ideas you can recall from a passage—but the ability to use the information you gain from reading, the fruits of your labor, to apply to some new situation or problem or project."

Not  your score in identifying or recalling, but your ability to use information? This is great stuff and few of us would choose not to follow that education reform  “parade”, but realistically how easy is it for us to join?  The article points out some obstacles: class time needed to enhance all student reading,  appropriate professional development for teachers to support all students, and funding needed to ensure classrooms have a variety of text types to promote learning.

A teacher in attendance at Monday’s meeting echoes some of the concerns mentioned in the Gewertz article.  She comments on the need for the Board and administration to continue to provide funding support for diverse texts, updated technology, new programs, etc. that may be needed to assist with implementing common core changes in the classroom.                                                      

In sum, Common Core standards could enhance critical thinking skills, better prepare students for college and career, and ultimately produce a better educated citizenry.  Additionally, the focus on literacy spans all subjects, affording educators more opportunity to collaborate across their fields.  Beautiful stuff,  but one must question how we can possibly sustain such positive impacts within the confines of an accountability based assessment system: we may be raising the bar, but we are still teaching to the test.  

In  the article,  “Time on Testing: 738 minutes in 3 weeks”, Chicago teacher Adam Heenan tells of a student who had turned an assessment answer sheet on its side and bubbled in the colloquial acronym “YOLO” — You Only Live Once — on the exam. Heenan and others are pushing for an audit of time and money spent, not only on testing, but on test-prep:  “We need to know how much time and money test-driven policymakers have diverted from teaching and learning into testing, and to show what we could be doing with those resources instead.”

Speaking of test-driven policymakers, in 2009, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan -  assumed to be keeping his throne four more years – told us that education was the “civil rights issue of our generation”.  In that speech, Duncan acknowledged the limitations of NCLB and admitted the need for states to “develop better assessments”.  He also conveyed his impatience with decades of promises to reform the US education system:  

“And yet we are still waiting for the day when every child in America has a high quality education that prepares him or her for the future. We're still waiting for a testing and accountability system that accurately and fairly measures student growth and uses data to drive instruction and teacher evaluation. We're still waiting for America to replace an agrarian 19th century school calendar with an information age calendar that increases learning time on a par with other countries. We're still waiting and we cannot wait any longer.”

No, Secretary Duncan, we cannot. And as we near 2013, we are beyond waiting – we are lingering.

Some great articles to spur discussion at your holiday table - enjoy and be safe!

*For a detailed and  thoughtful analysis on the origin of “high stakes testing”, see Dora Taylor's series on Parents Across America website.

*For a targeted analysis of Duncan’s accountability based “reforms”, see PL Thomas’ article, “Obama Won, But Did Educators Lose in the Process?”

 

Are Rules Made to be Broken?

October 15th Property and Finance Committee Meeting:

In attendance: Committee Chair Sean Carpenter and members Ed Coyle, Karen Miller, and Linda Raileanu. Also in attendance were Board President Vince Murphy, Maria Pimley, Maureen Snook, and Sue Tiernan. Heidi Adsett was absent, the 2nd consecutive P&F meeting that she has missed. 

It was a relatively short and uneventful meeting.  There have not been any significant changes in the 11/12 Actual, 12/13 Projected, or 13/14 Estimated financials.  The 11/12 year ended with expenses approximately $8M lower than budget, revenues nearly $2M higher than budget, and total fund balances (committed and non-committed) nearly $12M higher than budget.  The 12/13 expenses are currently projected at about $1M lower than budget and revenues about $500k higher.  Our projected 13/14 shortfall remains over $5M; while we have sufficient fund balance to cover that, we do not have enough to cover the significantly larger shortfalls currently projected for the 14/15, 15/16, and 16/17 years without spending cuts and/or increased revenues.

As the Business Office begins more detailed planning for the 13/14 year, Dr. Moore reviewed several factors used during that process:

• Enrollment projections for the next 5 years remain relatively flat with 13/14 enrollment expected to be 11,649, 38 fewer students than the current year
• enrollment projections drive building level budgets and staffing needs
• the flat projections are primarily due to lower births in the district
• over the last 10 years WCASD enrollment has increased by 97 students
• the Share of Total Student Population Analysis shows the following:
• over the last 10 years, total # of students residing in the WCASD borders have decreased 4.6%; within that, students attending district schools has increased almost 1% while students attending non-district schools (e.g., private, parochial) has decreased almost 17%
• within the population of students attending non-district schools, Religious schools have experienced the largest decline in attendance, falling more than 26%; Alternative schooling (e.g., Glen Mills Day School) were next with a 19% drop, followed by Homeschooling (-12%) and Private (-10%)
• non-district school categories that experienced increases in attendance included Charter Schools (up 51% from 431 students to 650), Chester County Intermediate Schools such as CAT Pickering and CAT Brandywine (up 191% from 11 to 32 students), and Special Education Schools (up 410% from 21 students to 107) 
• Building Budgets are comprised of Per Pupil Allocations (PPA) as well as Fixed Activity Budgets for the Secondary Schools
• the 13/14 PPA factor of $134.20 is the same as the 12/13 school year which was down from $150 in the 09/10 year, $142 in the 10/11, and $143.10 in the 11/12; the schools have been carefully monitoring their spending which has allowed the budgeted amounts to decrease
• while the PPA factor is the same as the 12/13 year, the total PPA allocation for the 13/14 year of $2.4M is about $27k less due to the lower projected enrollment
• the total Secondary School Fixed Activity Budget will be $555k, the same as the 12/13 year
• Rustin will no longer be given a $10k Gate Receipts Supplement due to the installation of lights at the stadium and the resulting expected increase in the school's gate receipts.

Dr. Scanlon discussed the status of the decision whether to close an elementary school.  Twenty-five members from the Space Consolidation Task Force, which was formed during the 2nd Budget Task Force, have reconvened and will be collecting data through November.  This information will be presented to the P&F Committee and then the full Board at their November meetings and a final decision must be made in December.  The data to be collected includes # of students impacted, impact on class size, number of sections per grade level (e.g., how many 3rd grades a school will have), cash flow scenarios, and verification of the previously projected $1.3M/year operational savings from closing a school.  The committee will also be looking at the option of closing 2 schools and building a new one, as well as other possible cost savings measures if a school is not closed. 

Sean Carpenter stated that the predominant criteria for making this decision should be whether the closure of a school is in the best interest of the students of WCASD.  He did qualify, however, that this must include consideration of the fact that any endeavor that saves money will allow for the funding of other initiatives, thus contributing to the best interests of the students.  Ed Coyle pointed out that from a parent perspective, no one is going to be happy to see their school closed, and Maria Pimley questioned how they can truly define what is in the "best interest of the students" since many non-financial, subjective criteria impact this as well.  Maureen Snook stated that she felt this decision was being rushed, and that she thought the East Bradford renovations should be put on hold until a more extensive analysis could be performed.  My perception was that the majority of board members are not fully behind the notion of closing a school, however do feel it is necessary to go through this exercise.

Several members of the public spoke out against the closure of a school, one of whom was former Board Director Terri Clark.  Mrs. Clark stated that the district had closed elementary schools in the past, and that invariably they ended up needing the space down the road.  She also pointed out that research shows that smaller elementary schools with 325-350 pupils are optimal, and so she would not want to see us creating significantly larger schools to accommodate this plan.  It is interesting to note that currently only East Bradford falls within this 325-350 optimal enrollment with 339 students, and this is only due to its headcount being down (after the last redistricting in 2006 it had 439 students).  Additionally, in prior discussions on this topic the administration had stated that it was comfortable with headcount up to about 600, which Starkweather currently exceeds and Hillsdale is nearly at with September enrollment of 596.  No matter what the outcome, the district will still need to go through a redistricting effort since some schools are nearly at full capacity while others are significantly under.  This will occur in either 2015 or 2016 depending on the outcome of the school closure discussion, and student populations will need to be pushed from the southeast part of the district up toward the northwest.     

The last item on the agenda was a presentation on the status of the Penn Wood and Westtown-Thornbury renovations by Facilities Director Kevin Campbell.  The Penn Wood renovations have not been going smoothly.  The first phase was completed just prior to the opening of school and only with the help of district employees who donated their time.  The second phase is currently 2 months behind schedule, and Mr. Campbell has been meeting with the contractors to ensure that Phase 3 will be completed prior to the opening of school next year.  The project is still within budget and the district is seeking damages from the contractor.

Westtown-Thornbury's renovations, on the other hand, have been progressing very smoothly and there was no issue with completing Phase 1 prior to the start of school.  Phase 2 is progressing easily as well and is expected to complete on or ahead of schedule which will allow some movement into the new spaces over winter break.  Included in Phase 3 is the renovation of the kitchen, and the district is currently working with the contractors  to allow this portion of work to start early due to the magnitude of work to be performed.  It sounded as though this could impact the school's ability to serve lunches while school is in session, although this was not said outright so don't quote me.  Both Westtown-Thornbury and Penn Wood's renovations are expected to be completed in August of 2013, in time for the start of the 13-14 school year.

Other interesting tidbits....
Usually at the end of the committee meetings, the Committee Chair will ask if there are any other questions or comments.  However, after the last agenda item at this meeting, Sean Carpenter moved to adjourn.  He said it was due to an Executive Meeting scheduled to occur following the P&F, however none of the board members moved out of the room too quickly following the adjournment.  Dot Krikorian did chime in and asked if there was any update on negotiations since the 2 sides had recently met yet there had not been a press release from the board as had been occurring until this point.  Mr. Carpenter deferred to Mr. Murphy, who stated that there was no update but that some form of communication would be forthcoming (which we can assume was the statement read at the 10/22 Board Meeting where we also learned that the 2 sides will not meet again until 11/29).

I had a question that I wanted to ask as well, but did not get a chance.  Policy KBCC Board Meeting News Coverage deals with the Board’s interactions with the media.  The last paragraph of the policy states that “When individual Board members receive requests from news media representatives for information about Board opinions, members shall refer the information-seekers to the Board President who shall be public spokesperson for the Board except as he/she delegates this responsibility to others.”  When I had previously inquired regarding Mrs. Adsett’s interview with Fox News following the September Board Meeting, Mr. Murphy stated, “Regarding the Fox news report and Ms. Adsett speaking on behalf of the school board, she was not my choice to speak for the board. I didn’t know she was speaking until I saw her being interviewed while I was walking into the board meeting”.  Clearly the Board President had not delegated this responsibility to Mrs. Adsett, nor did she decline the interview and refer the Fox news reporter to Mr. Murphy.  Since I did not get to ask this question at the meeting, I emailed Mr. Murphy and Dr. Scanlon.  While I have corresponded with Dr. Scanlon on the subject, I never received a response from Mr. Murphy and don’t expect to.  Really, what could he say?  There is no doubt that the policy was broken, it’s pretty straightforward.  So what is one to do about a School Board Director who does not follow the rules she has been entrusted to enforce?  What indeed….