Board Meeting Dec 18

It gets harder and harder to try to make these interesting (although there is a glimmer of possibility as I have raised the question of looking at school quality and this may mean we will talk about learning sometime in the coming year!). Meeting notes: 1. Principal reports on Critical Friends Groups and teachers talking about articles on differentiating learning and begin to think a bit differently in how they work with kids. Also, some teachers went to a math training that was supposed to be very good and this presenter is coming to Westminster to work with the whole staff. 2. Superintendent reports on March inservice and the idea of looking at science. Can't really argue with this as this is definitely an area that needs attention, although I wonder how we pick what to focus on and what this decision is based on (beyond picking one idea of many possible more or less out of thin air). 3. First reading of head lice policy: I think we already were ahead of this curve but now we have a district wide policy that doesn't freak out about lice and let's kids stay in school. 4. Budget committee reports on budget that cuts overall spending a pretty fair bit (maybe $200,000) but may not result in lower taxes to due reappraisal and some other state permutations about student numbers, etc. This new act 82, two vote threat seems to provide some restraint, although even when we are under the allowed increase, our spending is still near the high end statewide. It seems everyone involved with the budget is very prudent and careful about spending, and the big questions are about if we should cut as much as possible or put back some things that could be cut--how can we tell what is preferred by the voters and what makes a difference in terms of education. 5. Decided an engineering firm to handle water system improvement required by someone. Nice to see everyone lean to the local (also the lowest bids). 6. Happily for me, the board agreed to move the regular meetings to Thursdays. This avoids many conflicts I have on Tuesdays and hopefully is not a burden for others. 7. I mentioned that I spoke with Rep Obuchowski about this issue of kids having to move out of schools mid year if their family moves. This seems to me to be just a terrible thing to do to kids whose families are under stress and there is nothing else stable but school. And after the October count, I think they are paid for already. I sensed dissatisfaction with the notion of looking out for the kids which is more than a little troubling. I realize this can be a potential challenge to the system, but I feel these kids are not just Westminster kids or Saxtons River kids but all our kids and we need to work together for the best for all kids, esp when it involves very little or no cost. We will see where this goes, but I bet there will be a lot of opposition at the state level from school boards and administrators who might be inconvenienced by this change in the interests of kids. We'll see.

Westminster Meeting Nov 18

Actually a fairly substantive meeting (and even a few laughs). 1. Approved new HIV/AIDS policy dictated from the higher ups in Montpelier. Good cause and good intent. I have a bit of trouble with the provision for annual training for like every living being related to schools on Hiv/AIDS not because it isnt a good idea, but given how little time there is for teachers to talk about kids and learning, taking even another 30 minutes of the very limited in service time for this means that much less time to work on educational quality. An hour of required training for cause A here and idea B there and suddenly there is no time for the real focus of schools on student learning. We really had no say over this (it is essentially mandated by the state) so it passed as is. 2. Principals Report on Pre School grant that is helping us subsidize preschool attendance at pre schools that meet quality standards. Great idea to help families get high quality preschool for families. We have to decide if we want to fund this over time and if we want to be a provider of preschool ourselves. I am reluctant to add another program into our schools that will inevitably fall under the same sort of inefficiencies we face with other public school programs (inflexible contracts, constraints on hiring and firing, various mandates). It would be great if we had loads of qualified programs we could use for our kids, but there are too few programs in the area, so this will be an issue to think about over time. 3. Superintendent reported on SPED audit. I don't understand all the details, but someone seemed to screw up and our town is being billed for $64,000 for overcharges in some year past. Again, not much to do about this as admin has been fighting this with the state for a good long while. Hopefully, we have corrected this problem to not happen again. 4. Bought a new bus! $73,000. Yellow. A small victory in that we looked at used buses for saving money, but it didn't seem any used bus bids were so appealing. 5. Incentive Pay: An idea I like that was included in teacher contract this year. Gives boards and admin authority to offer financial incentives for teachers to "go the extra mile" in developing and implementing plans to improve student learning. On one hand, this means paying teachers more for what I think is what we would expect from all teachers. But, as one board member pointed out, if this actually improves student learning, it is worth the investment. At the least, this is one way of recognizing and rewarding teachers who do this hard work to really focus on improving learning for all students. We allocated up to $7000 for this for the year, with no more than $750 per teacher. Is this the right number??? 6. At 9:00+, we got to the first ever (when I've been on the board) look at school quality and what is the board role in promoting and overseeing this. We agreed to think this over and get to this again in one month. Would love community input on what we should and could do to focus on school quality. Send your ideas along. 7. Finished with a request from a family to keep their child at Westminster although they had to move outof town due to changing family circumstances. Apparently, this is is not allowed by state law and various precedents this threatens. I find this one of the great flaws of our public school system (or lack thereof). I can't understand how we can't figure out how to help a kid who is going through all sorts of family stress and upheaval when they have to move (often for divorce or death or loss of a job). The one thing that can remain stable in a kid's life is their school, teacher, and friends. I don't see how taking even this away helps anyone. It isn't much of a system if we can't figure out how one school can work with another to do what is best for a child given that we are all paying taxes somewhere and it all is part of a larger tax structure through the state. Very sad to me.

WNESU, Ed in Other Places

Just back from a trip to Tennessee to work with a district there that is doing some great stuff to improve school climate and raise academic performance (two things that go together, with data showing an 11% increase in test scores at schools showing positive gains in school climate). What was most striking in Tn is the impressive level of accountability, transparency and communication in the Sullivan County district we worked with (and I believe statewide). Check out http://www.scde.k12.tn.us/metadot/index.pl to see exactly what they expect in curriculum results of assessment, school based improvement plans, etc. This is all aligned with state learning standards, teacher and principal performance contracts, school improvement goals, funding supports, etc.--and it is all public and open and accessible. While TN schools have a long way to go from a historically low level, the structure of their improvement efforts could teach us a lot in Vermont. Typically back here at home, the board meetings spend all too little time on issues of teaching and learning. Finally we pass the TPA contract for Bank North to deal with this retirement fund mandate from the federal government. Good to get that distraction off the plate. The new issue that comes up is whether to hire a new Special Education administrator to serve as the LEA (Local Educational Authority?) for out of district placement students (that can be much more costly to the district than in district services (numbers in the several millions are bantered about for a total of 41 kids, but shockingly, no one knows the exact number and there is no data available as to how this works out for individual students). The idea here is that this position would pay for itself with all these savings of some of these costs. The idea of inevitable savings was easily assumed by all despite no specific evidence. In theory, one high priced out of district placement brought back to the district could save the whole $80,000 or so this position is expected to cost. Unfortunately, without more information, this is pretty hard to determine. Of the claimed 41 out of district placements, 4 are home schoolers, 17 are in the Occupational Development Program at Springfield, 3 are at Kurn Hattin and # at Compass. All these, I believe are relatively low cost (perhaps lower than the cost of in district placement) and unlikely to be brought back into the district. Some, such as those at Austine or other areas serving high needs require services we simply can't provide easily. So that leaves less than 20 students who may fall into the "savings" category. In thinking about the information I would like to make a decision about a new, $80,000+ position, it would help to know exactly how much we currently pay for each of the 41 out of district placement by individual (not collectively). I imagine the range is quite large, from almost nothing in the case of homeschoolers and less than $10,000 total for 3 kids at Compass to probably a couple hundred thousand for one or two kids. Having these more precise numbers would make it easier to estimate if there would be any significant savings. Contrary to what I think some imagine, there isn't necessarily any savings from bringing a kid back in-district. And certainly the savings is nowhere near the actual cost we currently spend for any individual out of district. The reason for this, obviously, is that there is a cost to in-district services. Of course we hope and think this would be lower than out of district, but this isn't guaranteed. For example, in the case of Compass at least, the cost of tuition is considerably lower than at the BFUHS or BFMS so even it that was currently being paid for Compass kids (and there are none this year who receive district funding for regular tuition), it would actually cost us MORE to bring the student back "in-district." Likewise, taking a kid back from Kindle Farms does not recapture all their tuition costs--he or she will cost at least the per pupil tuition cost of well over $10,000 plus all the special education services. Again, hopefully some savings but not guaranteed. This LEA hire may well be the right thing to do and be a real savings (andhopefully better serve kids and families). But without more information, none of which was available at the board meeting, it seems impossible to make an informed decision. Hopefully someone can provide this information before we have to make a decision.

Westminster Meeting Oct 7

Even the looming Pres. debate didn't shorten the meeting much. The good news: reading scores, on the DRA for 2nd graders, were way up! (95% of the kids last year met the standard (after dropping as low as 57% last year). Could be a one year blip, but more likely, we were assured, it was related to better attention to each and every student in reading (rather than being comfortable with good enough readers and focusing just on the struggling ones). A hopefully positive effort to really leave no child behind. Most of our time, as usual, was less education focused. A lot of time devoted to this silly federal regulation about 401(b) retirement accounts and how every district has to enact these complicated new policies that require hiring a third party administrator (TPA). No one really understands this except to say it is taking a lot of time from some adminstrators, it will cost money, and it has nothing to do with student learning. Second time user is the 13 page Comprehensive HIV POlicy (from the state) that is fine in intent, but includes provisions such as "the superintendent or his/her designee shall provide training to all staff and students" related to a bunch of stuff related to HIV. Again, a cost in money and LOTS of time that has little to do with student learning. Third item is the draft Wellness Committee Snack Guidelines. At least this articulates some recommendations and communicates to parents and is unobjectionable (I think) in that it doesn't really mandate or prohibit anything (except candy and soda). But it also, apparently, doesn't set any schoolwide practices and anything in it can be overridden by an individual teacher in their classroom, perhaps completely arbitrarily. So, this is a step forward in having written guidelines, but could still be confusing if individual teachers make some individual decisions in contradiction to this school recommendation. Fourth item: Purchasing a replacement bus. Despite a commitment to look into the relative merits of new vs used buses, we were told mostly about the new bus sales the district is familiar with and really have gotten little info on used buses. We pushed to continue to look at both new and used. In the end, new buses may be better for us, but it seems we should see what is the best use of this money. Last item (under open Director Comments). One board member (me), raised a concern about articulation and communication by teachers about their learning goals for students for the year and their overall plans to reach these. As a teacher, I have trouble understanding how you can teach without some overall goals and plans for the year. I am hopeful every teacher at Westminster has these plans in mind, but as a parent, I know I haven't seen this from some teachers. If we are to ever even begin to look at academic quality in the school, we at least need some sense of what teachers are aiming for to be able to tell how we are doing on getting there. This will be put on a future agenda and maybe we will actually talk about education and student learning for a change! A little thought: Ever notice how close the spelling of board and bored are?

School Board Exciting Meeting!

Wow! What a difference a little public input makes. In what I am sure was the most exciting board meeting I've been at, there were about 20 real live citizens at the meeting, motivated by a very tentative suggestion that we look at Winter Sports spending and its best use. The first sign of the excitement was exchanging our regular quiet library setting for the more lively old gym. And even before the regular agenda got underway, the time for public comments actually had a public, and hence some real concerns were raised, mainly to discuss the widespread confusion about the "snack policy" at school this year. As expressed by parents, there is a lot of confusion about what is allowed or prohibited and kids are coming home saying they weren't allowed to eat this or that snack they brought in. The board assured the parents there wasn't a board policy about snacks, and the principal communicated that this was really a class by class rule. This raises reasonable concerns about inconsistency between teachers of the same grade or if you have one child in one grade who can eat some snack and another child with a different teacher who cannot. Even more significantly, it seems whatever the rules are, they should be communicated clearly with parents. The sense from this meeting was that parents were more than open to having some restrictions on what snacks were acceptable. But they justifiably felt strongly that the rules should be made clear to students and parents before they were enforced (and it would be nice if the teachers helped educate students on the reason for the restrictions rather than just make edicts). Attention to this kind of communication from school to parents and the community seems to me the most crucial factor in engendering community support for schools. I think parents can support all sorts of school practices if only they felt informed and were able to understand the reasoning behind school practices. The one outcome of this discussion was clarifying the process for parents to bring concerns to the school. The first step if it is a concern with a particular class or teacher (according the school policy) is to go to the teacher directly. If this doesn't resolve things, then one goes to the principal and then the superintendent and then the board. The important thing is that one does raise these concerns and they are brought to the school in some fashion. As a board member, I am surprised how infrequently concerns one hears about our schools are ever brought to the attention of those in school. Without these concerns being raised, the standard response from school officials is "I haven't heard about this problem," or "There is no record of this being a problem." If we as a community want to improve our schools, it is incumbent on the public to bring their concerns to school officials. The winter sports discussion showed the power of a few vocal community members. This was put on the agenda merely to begin thinking about this $15,000 line item and its best use. Feeling that the downhill ski program was threatened, ski advocates showed up to express how much they valued this ski program for their children and themselves. This chance to appreciate winter in Vermont and to be outdoors was cited as a great value of the Winter Sports program. Hearing no dissenting voices, the board was led to pass a motion on the spot to reaffirm the Winter Sports program for this winter. This was an example of how a few voices, whether or not representative of the greater public, can carry the day. The board really has no way of knowing if the 20 or so people at the meeting reflected the whole community view or that of a small minority. But in the end, it doesn't really matter as these are the voices that were heard and in the absence of other voices to propose alternatives (that might not compromise the commitment to winter sports but might achieve the same goals at a lower cost in both money and personnel time), the existing program stays in place. The rest of the meeting was less eventful (a good portion of the crowd left after this agenda item was resolved). Some discussion about the need for buying a bus (happily, we will explore the relative merits of used vs. new), energy savings ideas (the school is actually pretty efficient but there are some small changes that could offer savings we will be looking into), and planning for next year's budget (to be worked on prior to each board meeting for a while). The one other big issue was giving authority to the WNESU board (which includes 3 Westminster board members) for district wide curriculum ratification and to give the District Special Education Director some input into non LEA Special Education spending decisions. There was an understandable reluctance to relinquish authority to a those further from our school. In the end, the board supported the curriculum approval for at least 4 years to see how it works and to give the SPED Director this authority that is apparently common in all other districts. With the curriculum, we were assured this would not prescribe particular texts or packaged programs but merely focus on goals and objectives and desired outcomes. It does seem this district needs more clarity and consistency about what we expect is taught and learned. But the point was made we don't want to be told by some committee or administrator what programs we have to use or what textbooks we need to buy. The Superintendent threw out the idea of 60-40--60% of the curriculum would fall under the district wide agreement, and 40% would be determined by teachers or in individual schools. I write this here so we can keep track of this as we see how this district wide authority is exercised. Come to some meetings--it makes them much more fun, and part of the community!

Welcome Back

I apologize for being slow in updates here. (Though I wonder if anyone is reading this at all). Part of this is due to the summer slump in meetings, part due to my absence from the few meetings that existed. Rather than reviewing every agenda item, let me make share some general impressions of board business: 1. The board has a lot less power than anyone seems to think. The biggest role of the board, it seems, is as an oversight body to make sure nothing really stupid or illegal happens. We are supposed to check financial report, sign warrants, approve hiring (based often on very little information), approve policies (usually mandated to us from above), hear reports (and maybe even comment on them although what happens with our comments seems minimal). 2. The biggest "decisions" the board makes relate to requests from teachers and staff (which are surprisingly common) for variances from the contract (being paid for sick or vacation days, getting extra paid days for unpaid leave, etc.). These are pretty uniformly rejected, as the contract negotiations seem so protracted and specific on garnering the most benefits the employees can get, it is hard to see why the employer should make special exceptions to go beyond the contracted agreements. 3. The other big decision point for the board is around creating the budget (which I haven't been part of yet), but even this seems like it has limited impact, as it most expenses are probably fixed for the most part--there is little room to raise expenses significantly, and any attempt to cut significantly in any area would likely be met with strong resistance about undermining the quality of education for kids. 4. "Silver bullet" ideas are often much more attractive than doing the lower profile, less disruptive solutions. The biggie this year is energy savings/money savings ideas. The two ideas being floated are 4 days weeks and closing schools in winter. These seem massively disruptive to me, and mostly involve cost shifting from the school budget to family budgets. I hope the public is smarter than this and can see how cutting school one day a week only shifts costs to families to pay for transportation and childcare for their own kids. Before we go to this drastic step, how about setting back thermostats at night, lowering temps in the day, turning down heat over vacations, turning off lights more, reducing transport costs (esp by changing sports leagues to be more local (nothing more than 40 miles away except for state playoffs) and pairing trips for boys and girls teams), etc. ? 5. A suggestion has been made at the district level to consolidate control of the curriculum at the district level. On one level, this seems logical and prudent, esp if it means just coordinating general goals and learning objectives. But on another, it is worrisome to think this might mean defining for all schools (and teachers) specific books, programs, and teaching methods. For example, might this mean we would mandate from the district level that all schools use a reading program like Success for All, that is increasingly being discredited at a national level? Might this push us closer to "one size fits all schooling" or will this help be more organized and consistent in assuring every child is achieving the common goals we value? It would be nice to hear from stakeholders on this one.

Westminster and WNESU Mtgs July

Summer Meetings....It is amazing all the on-going details of running schools. It is hard to judge if this is inefficiency or smart oversight. From the board viewpoint, most of what we do is get reported to on issues we really have fairly little control over. At the Westminster meeting, we had a report on the food program, which serves a pretty high number of meals a day (somewhere about 100 breakfasts and 270 lunches), and has an overall cost to the school of about $10,000. But this tells us little about the quality of the food and areas for possible savings or increased quality. The assumption is the food program will lose money (or cost money), although the grounds for this assumption is simply that the private purveyor previously charged about $10000 for their less good food service but this included probably a fair profit margin. Could a school food program provide quality and even turn a profit that could compensate the food service director? Possibly, but without any form of compensations tied to savings or quality, there is little incentive for the food service to aim for these results. I wonder if there is a way to make the food service more like a private company where the director can pursue economic rewards from generating a profit in the program, without sacrificing quality (which is part of the reason this is't just a free market business in schools). Other reports to us on the cost of the fuel pump at the high school (over budgetdue to some special regulations with costs spread among districts), food service accounting, and hiring of school based clinician (that has to be decided now to reserve this time even though the exact needs can't be known until school opens). Then we spent inordinate time on individual contract issues--sort of the result of the very generous contracts negotiated with teachers and support staff, that include benefits not all that common anymore in the private sector ("cadillac" health benefits, a hefty number of vacation, sick, and personal days, etc). These contracts set a precedent that is then cited by other employees to be treated "fairly." It is hard to argue that one employee should not get some benefits when all others do get them, but it is hard to think that the school district is obligated to provide pay and benefits for every employee that is beyond those provided to the taxpayers in other employment who receive few of these benefits in terms of pay scale, raises, or benefits. Sadly, as the private sector becomes ever less generous with employees, the gap between what the school district provides and what the taxpayer gets wider, and ever harder for the taxpayer to be able to afford. Somewhere, this is going to hit the fan, but I don't know how you bridge the gap of perceptions where teachers express a continued feeling of being undervalued and undercompensated (which I believe, from looking at historical data, was much more a well founded argument 20 or 30 years ago than today, given the past couple decades of pay increases for teachers much above the rate of other job sectors). The WNESU meeting had few major highlights. More approval of contracts for central office, talking about how best to report spending accounts, trying to make check signing more efficient (but not less accountable), discussion of oil bids for the district, and possibilities for consolidating buses across the district (an assumed savings plan although I am not sure exactly what this assumption is based upon without more information). The best thing about this meeting was its relative efficiency (done before dark!).

WNESU BOARD May 28

Doreen, the minutes recorder, gave this meeting a bad grade since it took so long--getting out just about 10 pm. What all takes this much time? We start promptly at 7, almost to the second, and have curriculum presentations on Literacy and Social Studies from these committees led by principals and including teachers from all grade levels. Literacy includes both reading and writing, but in truth, it is mostly reading, which is tied to a "research based" Reading First program that demands 90 min daily and a largely prescribed curriculum. Add this time to the 90 min math program, add in a few specials like PE or Art, a bit of time for lunch and recess and such, and at least for the elem level, it doesn't leave a whole lot of time for writing or social studies or science. I personally have some problems with the "research based" designation, esp since the recent research on these Reading First programs has raised significant questions about the efficacy of these programs. I know for my children, who were both relatively strong readers, and I have heard similar ideas from others, that the readings in the younger grades were uninteresting at best and more often gibberish that my kids despised. I am not sure this reading program is the best for all, but at least the attention to reading across grade levels and across the curriculum is valuable. Sadly, this does squeeze out writing too often. It sounds like the district has done well to coordinate around some common writing programs and protocols, and the desire to attend to writing more is there. To me, the best way to learn to write is to...write. Kids just need to write more often and in many forms and settings to see writing as expression and not just as a chore in editing and mechanics. I am not sure this happens nearly enough for all kids. The Social Studies group is beginning to detail (or map) their curriculum k-12 and they've developed a nice format to identify key learning goals, essential questions, and main ideas to teach. This will help teachers immensely in deciding on what and how to teach, and could lead to a solid criteria referenced, local assessment system to evaluate how students are doing on these goals. This is great work to be moving forward on--and somewhat remarkable that this hasn't been done in the past. This is certainly one of the primary benefits of the standards movement to at least get teachers talking across grades and across schools about what we want our students to learn and how we are doing on these goals. If this had been done better in the past, maybe we wouldn't have this national testing movement that narrows learning around these limited, easy to grade test formats. This all took long enough, but seems important to review, and then we got into the less thrilling discussion of employee benefit plans (ways to save money while providing the same or better benefits by switching from one provider (with real problems from the business perspective)), and an even longer discussion of the new 403b requirements that all employers have to do a bunch more paperwork to document plans, undertake more responsibility for their employees choices, and probably pay at third party provider to take on some of these responsibilities. We heard from the superintendent about the success of the high school in raising test scores through a variety of strategies, one of which was getting kids to take the test seriously enough to get off technical assistance. The other big time consumer was discussing the $1.6 million dollar disagreement of expenses frmo some years ago that was unveiled in a state audit. While the district seems confident that about $500,000 of this is solidly accounted for, there is about $1.2 million that the auditor may determine was misbilled. Since the district gets about 50% reimbursement from the state, this means the district would be responsible for about $600,000. The total special ed budget that year was about $6.7 million, so this is questioning about 24% of the budget. I was quite astounded by the cost of special ed per child--even using the arbitrary idea of dividing the cost by the total number of students in the district and this works out to about $5000 for every single student. If these services go to 30% of our kids, this is more like $15,000 per special ed student (and I am told one student that year cost something over $200,000). It is easy to think there could be some savings in the cost of these services, but I am also sure some budget hawks on the board have looked into this for some years. Finally, we approved the hire of a new director of Instructional Services (which I think means Special Education Director). I was a little uncomfortable with the board's role in this, as we just see a resume and a cover letter and are asked to approve the hire. I assume the hiring committee is enthusiastic about this new hire and she brings some real strengths, but I wish some of this was shared so we have some idea of what we are approving and what we might look forward to in this very important position. I guess next time I will have to be more adamant about asking for this, even if it is almost 10 pm and everyone is antsy to leave.

Board Meeting May 20

Sometimes (most times?) it feels like the School Board doesn’t have all that much to do. Especially when there is no one at a meeting except the 5 board members, the principal, superintendent, assistant superintendent, and minute taker, it can feel more like a little committee than some powerful Board of Directors (at least this keeps the public comments period short:).

To show how exciting it was, even with the agenda, I can’t remember what exactly was in the Principal or Superintendent’s Report except a handout on the Final Legislative Report of the 2008 Session which showed that not much changed in Montpelier, except the resignation of the Commissioner and a crucial civil rights law allowing kids to be exempted from dissection labs if they so choose (who says the legislature doesn’t take on important issues?).

We received a “paperpoint” on The McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Act, telling us that kids who are homeless have special rights to transportation, free meals, etc. that all makes sense. The one cost of all this to the district is for transportation (half of which for normal busing is reimbursed by the federal government I learned). The big trick here is identifying homeless kids (what do they do in big districts?) and then determining when they are no longer homeless.

We did actually do some larger social good actions—allocating funds to install circulation fans in the heating system that can save $2000+ per year and should cost about $6000 after a $2000 rebate from Efficiency Vermont. Good for savings, good for energy, good for the climate in school and outside.

We also allocated money to buy books for students for summer reading, purchasing through the local bookstore—supporting independent bookstores, local business, and helping develop a reading culture among the kids.

On a less positive note, I learned of the Special Ed Audit of the 2004-2005 Schoolyear that disallowed over $1.6 million of charges throughout the district! This is being appealed but it is hard to know how this could happen and to this degree. Even if spread among all kids in the district, this works out to about $1000 of charges per kid. I will have to look at what the whole special ed budget is to find out what percent of the whole budget $1.6 million is. And who is responsible for this when it happened? Yuck!

Finally, we approved an unpaid leave day for a para whose son has been in military service in the Mideast and is on leave in the states—not a tough decision (Good newspaper headlines—School Board Denies Leave for Mother to Visit Iraq Veteran Son).

Board Meeting April 15

We seem to be practicing for moving to one meeting per month. Not so much on the agenda of great excitement (I hope I am not getting jaded already:) and done pretty promptly. We were presented with this health and wellness program for faculty that is sponsored by the Vermont Health Insurance system for teachers that somehow pays each teacher for participating in wellness activities AND then gives the schools money to match what teachers get--all for FREE (or included in the increase in health care expenses???). Not much to argue about here, unless one is against health and monetary incentives and matching funds for schools (although now that I mention the health care premiums, I do realize this could be just a new profit center for the insurance company???). Still, I think the idea is that there are lots of benefits from a healthy faculty and this actually lessens health care costs overall and may lessen sick days, et al and help morale (as well as give kids better role models in seeing healthy adults around them. Other "highlights" include review the monthly budget figures, adopting new head lice policy (much more humane than previous quarantine approach), update on the school's apparently continually malfunctioning freezer that the principal is trying hard to get replaced (for free) by the original provider(s), and approving our audit firm (if this doesn't make you want to join right in at the meetings, I don't know what would :) ). Thankfully, I am not on the contract negotiating committees--these may be more exciting but I don't think exactly a lot of fun.

Board Meeting April 1

Come 25 minutes late and you can miss the whole agenda! Between a late soccer game and blinding fog, I missed what must have been really short reports and reading of policies and some action on paying for our share of the BFUHS fuel pump repairs and then reappointing teachers for next year. I did arrive to learn that all of this work was "pro forma"--meaning I guess we have no real say in all this. I realize reappointing teachers happens every year, but any issue related to personnel seems the most important aspect of the board's role in assuring quality. So when we got to the appointment of new teachers, I raised the question if the board sees resumes before we vote for these appointments. I guess this hasn't been past practice, and in the case of the current principal, members felt we have trust and faith in his decisions. While I think boards need to be careful to not micromanage, it seems we should have policies not based on who is the principal today but what is the right action to assure quality and accountability. I believe we should see resumes for many reasons: 1) So we as board members can celebrate, brag about, and be inspired by the qualifications our hires bring, 2) To be able to make some connection with new hires to make them feel more welcome to our community, 3) To be responsible for our approval of appointments (with just their name to vote on, I feel like if I am signing a legal document without reading it), 4) To get a picture of how our various hires fit together and if we are working towards the right mix of talents for the school, 5) To ensure against malfeasance if someone was being hired who lacked any qualifications or if 5 hires in row happened to be from the principal's mother's hometown or whatever. I have great faith in this principal (and in all humans for that matter)--but to have no oversight at all is inviting someone who may be tempted to be unscrupulous to become so, 6) Given all the paper copied for board meetings already, making 5 copies of a resume isn't asking that much. Even without resumes I was thrilled we were able to hire Cynthia Payne-Meyer for next year. As her resume would show (if we had it), and as we know from our experience having her teach our son this year (and comments from many other parents), she is one of the strongest teachers we have at Westminster. It is great to have her on board permanently. After this excitement, all we had to do was read the 18 page Federal Family and Medical Leave Act (Public Law 103-3)--A well intended law but expensive to implement. Upon close reading, we learned the school or board really has no say over employees taking leave. As long as they have the sick days accumulated and a real reason, they merely have to inform the employer if they will be taking family or medical leave and are entitled to up to 6 weeks paid and 12 weeks total in any 12 month period. It's too bad this can impact kids' learning, but such is the law. By 8:15 we were done, and driving about 2 miles an hour in the fog, I only drove off the pavement once and got home by 8:30!

WNESU Board Meeting 1: March 26

First meeting of the district board, which is made up of lots of reps from all the other boards but which (I am told) has very limited authority since this is vested in the individual boards. I think this board is more an efficiency of getting all the boards (how many are there—maybe 6?) to hear the same stuff at one place, rather than bringing it to a bunch of boards and repeating it again and again. Do we need this many boards and is this the best way to lead to quality education??? This is one of those big questions about consolidating districts.

Again I am impressed by the spirit of the board members who seem to be dedicated and forward looking and focused on quality. I am sure there will be times there are disagreements, but I want to trust each person’s motivation is doing what is best for producing quality education by effectively using resources.

The big content of this meeting was hearing about district wide curriculum work in science and math. Seems like a lot of effort by teachers to look hard at what they have been doing, what is expected in these subjects (from state policy, national standards, other schools, etc), and how to map what should be taught (and learned?). This can generate a sheaf of papers with all sorts of lists and goals and tables, and if this assured student learning, we’d have the most talented kids on the planet. Unfortunately, it isn’t all that easy and even with all the time this process of curriculum planning takes, the ultimate questions are how does this impact the teaching and learning process, and how do we assess to evaluate if and how these goals are being met (and then maybe most significantly, what adjustments are made to respond in areas we fall short of the goals?) (all questions asked by board members).

This curriculum goal writing is important and was sadly not done all that well decades ago so politicians stepped into the void and came up with usually endless lists of things they thought would be good for kids to know. So now teachers are spending a lot of time trying to align these long lists of standards with what they have already been teaching and what is in the textbooks they have and what kids can actually do and the time they have. Not a bad exercise, but time consuming and too often futile when a) they learn there is not enough time (for example lots of elementary schools in the US have abandoned science and/or social studies since that isn’t on the state tests and in this district elem. teachers admit having maybe a couple hours all week for these subjects) and b) the curriculum expectations from the state/federal govt could change just when they get this all aligned. Presuming neither of these problems exist, it still will take at least a year or more before these goals will really be able to drive changes in teaching and learning (and that presumes a willingness and ability to change among teachers).

As one parent expressed in the meeting, there is a big, well researched national report that raises questions about spiraling math curricula (which includes our Everyday Math program). Changing this is a fairly major decision and while this might happen by working through these new curriculum guideposts and implementing them and assessing their impact, this will surely take longer than the time her kids are in elementary school. While the school system may have the time to evolve the curriculum or improve individual teacher practice, for families, there is an immediacy that this 3^rd grade math curriculum or that 4^th grade teacher isn’t working for their kid and that can’t really wait for next year (or beyond).

The other agenda items have to do with efforts at cost containment (esp related to Special Education spending), policies (mandated by the state or fed govt mostly), and contract negotiations (a sadly adversarial process where requests for salaries and benefits seem disassociated from the realities of the economy and the very limited (if any) increases seen in other occupations nationwide (and certainly in this region)). Regardless of how much we value our teachers, as so many people see no increase in pay and are asked to take on ever increased health care contributions, it’s hard to see how we can ask taxpayers to continually dig deeper to guarantee generous salary increases for schools (hence the challenge of contract negotiations). Best of luck to all those trying to work this out.

Board Meeting 2: March 18

First official meeting—3 hours long, I hope not because of my involvement. Plenty of responsibility—looking over NECAP scores, school budget (30+ pages!), amendments for about 20 policies, special education stats district wide, appointing truant officer (a state requirement), how to follow up on town meeting, discussion of bus costs and billing, and the inevitable executive session to decide on personnel requests related to difficult family medical issues.

I’m glad I’m good with numbers, as the numbers we receive can be difficult to interpret, and potentially misleading. NECAP scores are grouped by percentages within each category of proficiency, so that an addition at one end of the spectrum (for example adding 5 free and reduced lunch students who tend to score lower (and represents a 10% increase of overall test takers)), lowers the percentage at the other end of the spectrum even if other students do the same as the year before or even better! The other big question I have, that no one else seems to have looked at, is how do we compare to NH and RI who are taking the same test? Sure there are differences among these states, but are there any relevant patterns here? Seems like someone should look at this. (I did and we are more or less similar--NH is a tad higher, RI a bit lower.) Overall, it seems our scores on reading and math are okay, but regardless of the details of the testing or the reporting, writing here and statewide needs more work (which I imagine most adults could have told you without any state test results).

Our new finance manager seems super on top of things (apparently after spending countless hours making up for some messes she inherited). For some reasons that were discussed before I came on the board, we have a $200,000+ surplus. According to Vt Law, this either is returned to the taxpayers by lowering the tax rate or we have to have a special town meeting to determine its use. The former seems much simpler (and more popular?) than the latter (although it should be raised in town meeting some time if we should have some kind of surplus/rainy day/sinking fund for the unanticipated budgetary ups and downs from year to year). Although some expressed the surplus may make the board “look bad,” I figure anytime you lower people’s taxes, not many will complain. More significantly, the reason why this surplus exists seems to have some relationship to difficulties with the financial record keeping of previous employees. The district seems to have recognized this and acted accordingly in hiring the new finance manager who inspires confidence that this problem should not be repeated in the future. I hope the community can understand that mistakes can happen—not learning from these and addressing them is what can make the board look bad.

The other math exercise was reviewing special education student numbers. Again, a one year snapshot is pretty hard to interpret. If the number of 12^th graders with IEPs is twice the number of 9^th graders, is this a bubble that has gone through the system or do our numbers increase over time in high school? Why don’t numbers drop over the years as at least a few kids work their way off IEPs? Are there particular reasons our numbers are higher than elsewhere in the state/country? Do we really get border crossers who leave NH for VT because we offer better services (and do these services outweigh the perceived “tax advantage” of living in NH)? And is the drop in total number of SPED students in the district (from about 350 to 300 over 6 years) a reflection of better special education services or simply mirroring the drop of overall student population in the district as a whole? And most significantly (and incredibly difficult to answer), are lower SPED numbers a reflection of better teaching or worse identification or lucky demographics….???? The only useful numbers, I think, are to look at the same kids (or group of kids) over time to see if numbers go up or down or stay the same. This is not exactly the level of detail we on the board are looking at.

The toughest issues to me are the personnel requests for paid leave around very real health and family issues. My inclination is to want to be as compassionate and flexible and supportive as possible. As an employer, I have learned of the awesome responsibility you have to help make employee’s lives workable. Each individual circumstance deserves the kind of personal attention and consideration that reflects the uniqueness of each person. But then with schools, it seems so much is tied into a negotiated contract and state and federal laws that delineate conditions that apply to every employee without regard to individual circumstance. If there seemed more flexibility and personalization from all sides, it would be easier to respond on an individual basis. Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to be the nature of the terms that get negotiated at contract time. So I feel stuck between wanting to support and honor our teachers (while remaining responsible to taxpayers) and the reality of a contract that too often limits the flexibility of schools to do what is best for kids and learning. Is there any hope to change this reality?

School Board Meeting 1: March 11

The board seems an amicable group—good spirited and good willed. Meeting round the table in the Superintendent’s office, you feel like you actually are at a school director’s meeting more than a public gathering. At the same time, there is a palpable sense of being a public representative, kind of like we are entrusted with the thinking and interests of the whole community. Fortunately, not much we talk about would generate strong opinions from the community (although the $48 per hour roof shovelers get can rile up even us board members who are looking to change careers now). If feels more like we are the keepers of integrity, aiming to do the “right thing” based on what we would we consider community standards.

My biggest insight from this first meeting was realizing the real monetary costs of doing the right thing. While it is easy to appreciate the value of Family and Medical Leave Act or looking out for homeless children, it can get expensive to fund the surprise expenses these entail. A teacher going to care for an ill parent or child, a family evicted from another district who finds themselves in ours but retains the legitimate right to stay in their old school placement (at our shared expense for transport)---these cost real money and they can’t really be planned for. The issue of mobile kids, so often among the most needy, really makes me question the utility of local funding when the families themselves can be far from local. A family moves in mid year with a slew of kids and expensive Special Ed needs can really wreak havoc with a budget. What if the money followed the kid in some prorated way? Would this system make more sense? Worth thinking more about.

About the roof shoveling—apparently it only is needed once in a decade or so, so maybe too unusual to worry about. But it seems you could find a load of folk to shovel for $20 an hour (or even as volunteers). But is this too big a liability risk for the school? Can it be organized on short notice when the roof needs shoveling? For the $5000 or so it cost, is it simpler and safer just to hire this seemingly overpriced service complete with workman’s comp and insurance and such rather than save maybe 3-4000 once every decade and be exposed to more headaches and potentially greater costs???? I’d love to hear from the community on this one.

Why I’m Running for Westminster School Board

It is important to our communities that we provide public education that is of high quality and at an affordable cost. Having both my children in Westminster School, being strongly committed to public education, and valuing what is best for all kids and the community, I have long wanted to serve on the School Board. Between helping found and direct Compass School and not wanting there to seem any conflict of interest between my role there and school policy, I have stayed out of Board politics. Seeing no one stepping forward to fill the open position on the Board this year, and with my involvement with Compass reduced to an advisory capacity, it seems the time I step forward to help our district manage the many challenging conditions facing our local schools.

I have been a teacher, school leader, coach, and business person. I went to public school my whole life, and directed a non-profit, Education by Design, that worked with public schools all over New England and New York to develop classrooms that helped all children develop the “knowledge, skills, and dispositions to succeed in school and in the world beyond.” From these experiences, I witnessed both the great possibilities of public schools in serving a diverse population and being accessible to all children and families and the great frustrations of a system that too often didn’t work for all kids, that had bureaucratic obstacles to doing what was best for kids, and, most tellingly, led to a nationwide phenomenon of more than 30% of our children not graduating from high school.

I have seen many great teachers and school leaders who have created schools that are highly successful, and I have also seen how poor leadership or an incompetent teacher can wreak havoc with children’s opportunities.

I know it is easy to criticize schools from the outside, and I know how easy it was as a consultant to tell schools and teachers about best practices for effective schools. To make these ideas real and respond to a community need, I agreed to help found Compass School to demonstrate what might be possible to create a school where every child could find success. Since the inception of Compass, we have tried to be a model for what is possible in public education, aiming to serve a population reflective of our local demographics (including serving students with special needs), and to work within per child costs equal to public schools. Now in our 9^th year, we have learned that while it may be impossible to create a perfect school, there are great possibilities to create learning communities that can serve a diverse population, create a respectful school culture, be economically efficient, and prepare students for success in higher education and the world beyond school.

As the Westminster schools face funding limits, more rigorous expectations, increasing federal and state mandates, and changing conditions at our area middle and high schools, we need to not only work hard but we need to work smart. I hope my experiences as a parent, teacher, learner, coach, and community member can well serve the Westminster district in using our resources to assure a quality school for all the children in our district.

You can read about my experience in education and elsewhere on my resume. I am more than happy to talk to you or respond to email if you want to learn more about me and what I hope I can bring to the board. Please feel free to call me at home, 869-6103 or email rickwestboard@yahoo.com.

RESUME

RICK GORDON P.O. Box 563 Saxtons River, Vermont 05154 rickwestboard@yahoo.com

Education

Ph.D., May 1995, University of Colorado Social and Multicultural Foundations of Education. Awarded a University Doctoral Fellowship.

M.A., June 1985, University of Minnesota Major in Political Science. Completed all course work for Ph.D. Focus in Organizational Theory and Public Policy.

B.A. with honors, June 1981, Stanford University Major in Political Science with a concentration in Environmental Policy.

Professional Experience

Director of Long Range Planning, Compass School. Responsible for strategic planning, program development, and public relations, as well as teaching high school humanities and coaching soccer. August 2006-Present.

Adjunct Faculty, Antioch New England Graduate School, Education Department. Taught “Leadership for Educational Transformation in the Principal Leadership Program. Summer 2007.

Director, Compass School. Founding board member and school director. Educational leader for idealistic middle and high school serving as a model for choice in the public education system. In addition to managing the budget, supervising teachers, organizing the educational program, facilitating the board, managing the physical plant, and setting the overall vision for the school, teach high school humanities and coach soccer. June 2001-July 2006.

Co-director, The Critical Skills-Education by Design Program. Responsibilities include program direction and leadership, oversight of $300,000 budget, fund raising, management of 50 person teacher leadership community, new program development, creation of marketing materials and website, consultation with school districts and state agencies, publications, and facilitation of workshops and institutes. Consultant for district-wide teams of administrators and teachers working on school transformation. Developer of Problem Based Service Learning model for higher education. July 1997-June 2001.

Board Co-chair, The Compass School. Responsible for school founding, overall school design, curricular development, teacher hiring and supervision, and community relations for community based middle and high school. September 1998-June 2001.

Core Faculty, Antioch New England Graduate School, Education Department. Teach curriculum and assessment, foundations, social context, and research courses. Advise practica and Master's projects in the Experienced Educators Masters Degree Program. October 1994-June 2001.

Facilitator, National Service Learning Assessment Network. Coordinate and facilitate national and local study groups investigating best practices in assessing learning through service. January 1997-December 1999.

Instructor, University of Colorado-Boulder, Foundations of American Education. Designed and taught experienced-based courses including service-learning component, portfolio assessment, and policy development program. June 1991-December 1993.

Ethnographer, Academy for Educational Development. Responsible for formative and summative ethnographic evaluation of The Rocky Mountain Expeditionary Learning/Outward Bound School funded by the New American Schools Development Corporation. October 1993-May 1994.

Teaching Associate, PROBE (Problem Based Education), an alternative teacher certification program for adults changing careers, University of Colorado-Boulder. Designed curriculum, facilitated seminar meetings, taught courses, and supervised student teaching placements in urban and suburban secondary school settings. August 1990-May 1991.

Head of Dorms and History Teacher, The Putney School. Developed and co-instructed the inter-disciplinary ninth grade global studies curriculum, taught 11th grade U.S. history, Head of Dorms, Faculty Trustee on the Board of Trustees, and cross-country ski and bike team coach. November 1986-June 1989.

Master's and Doctoral Theses

"A Symphony of Humanness: Teachers, Teams, and their Students." An ethnographic study of the thinking of middle school teachers involved in grade level teams and the contextual conditions which influence the development of professional community. Spring 1995.

"Organizations in Action." A study of educational organizations and goal structures in Minnesota. Spring 1985.

"Universalism and Public Spending." A theoretical explication of bureaucratic spending and legislative preference ordering. Spring 1984.

Publications

“Fathering Journey: Do Something Big!” Daughters Magazine (12:3), May/June 2007.

“Travel Together: Real Quality Time,” Mothering Magazine, In Press.

“Want Safe Schools, Put the Kids in Charge!” Classroom Leadership (7:2), October 2003.

Problem Based Service Learning Fieldguide: Making a Difference in Higher Education. Edited guidebook detailing practices and strategies for the implementation of service-learning by and for higher education faculty.

Service Learning and Assessment: A Field Guide for Teachers. Co-editor for National Service-Learning and Assessment Study Group's guide to best practices in the assessment of student learning through service.

Educator in the Workplace Training Manual. New Hampshire School to Career Partnership, Spring 1999.

"Balancing Real Problems with Real Results." Phi Delta Kappan, January 1998.

"At the Heart of Education: Portfolios as a Learning Tool." Chapter comparing the use of portfolios for elementary and college students and their relation to student outcomes and teacher development. Experience and the Curriculum, Bert Horwood, ed., 1995.

"The Irrational Science of Educational Reform." An ethnographic study of the shortcomings of "rational" approaches to educational reform. Presented at AERA Annual Meeting, April 1993.

Workshop Presentations and Facilitations

“Living Our Values.” Coalition of Essential Schools Fall Forum, Denver, Colorado, November 2007.

“Portfolio Assessment to Meet Learning Standards.” Lehman Alternative Community School, Ithaca, New York, January 2007.

“Graduation Portfolio Roundtables: Much More than Alternative Assessment.” Coalition of Essential Schools Fall Forum, Chicago, Illinois, November 2006.

“Service Learning for Higher Education.” Workshop and Presentation, University of the South, Sewanee, Tennessee, February 2005.

"Make a Difference-Problem Based Service Learning: An Innovative Approach for Higher Education." Three and Six day institutes for New Hampshire Campus Compact, November 1997, June 1998, June 1999, Maine Campus Compact, August 1998, June 1999, June 2000, June 2001, June 2002. Vermont Campus Compact, January 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004.

“Shared Leadership for Small Schools.” Coalition of Essential Schools Fall Forum, San Francisco, California, November 2004.

“Where is the Meaning for School Leaders?” Coalition of Essential Schools Fall Forum, Columbus, Ohio, November 2003.

“Starting Small Schools: Practical Advice Based On Experience.” Coalition of Essential Schools Fall Forum, Washington, D.C., November 2002.

“Starting a Small School: Leadership and Followership.” Coalition of Essential Schools Fall Forum, November 2001.

“Building Collaborative Learning Communities.” Microsoft Anytime Anywhere Learning Conference, Boston, Massachusetts. March 2002.

“Assessment for Service Learning.” Maine Campus Compact, Portland, Maine. March 2002.

“Building Competencies through Real World Problem Solving: Assuring the Learning in Problem Based Learning.” CES Fall Forum, Seattle, Washington. November 2001.

"Problem Based Service Learning: Practical Solutions for Meeting Course Learning Outcomes while Engaging Students in their Communities." American Association for Higher Education National Conference, Washington, D.C., March 2001.

"Balancing Real-World Problems with Real-World Results: Assuring the Learning in Problem Based Learning." ASCD National Conference. Boston, Massachusetts. March 2001.

"Educator in the Workplace: Connecting School and the Modern Workplace." Externship Training Courses. Manchester School to Career Partnership and Western Region Partnership. Summer 2000, New Hampshire School to Career Partnership, Summer 1998.

Best Schools Initiative Facilitator. SAU #34. Facilitator for Best Schools Leadership Team and co-author of $91,000 GOALS 2000 grant for the district. Led community profile core life skills committee and executive coordinating committee. August 1999- present.

"Coherence in Educational Change." The Fifth International Teaching for Intelligence Conference, San Francisco, April 1999.

"Authentic Learning, Authentic Teaching." Keynote speech for all-school faculty meetings. The Ellis School. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. August, 1998.

"Beyond Experiential Intelligence through Experiential Learning." The Fourth International Teaching for Intelligence Conference, New York City, April 1998

"Rubrics, Assessment, and State Standards." Keynote address for in-service workshop, Jaffrey-Rindge School District, January 1998.

Other Experience

President, Hard as a Rock Puzzles. Led small company that developed, marketed, and produced natural rock puzzles with educational and environmental focus. January 1993-April 1994.

Chief Executive Officer, Three Pin Productions. Designed, marketed, and produced polar fleece hats for children and adults. Eventually licensed rights to national company. September 1990-January 1992.

Group Leader, Global Reach. Co-led community service program for American high school students in Bali, Indonesia. June 1990-August 1990.

Course Instructor, Hurricane Island Outward Bound School. Led backpacking and canoeing courses for adults and high school students. Autumn, 1989.

Environmental Education Instructor, Interlocken Center for Experiential Education. Instructed week-long environmental education programs for sixth graders. Autumn 1986.

Trip Leader, Interlocken Crossroads Program. Planned and led summer cross-cultural bicycle trips for high school students in Europe, Scandinavia, and the United States. Summers 1984-1987.

Service

Head Soccer Coach, Saxtons River Youth Soccer Association, 2002-Present

Global Travel Slide Shows, Putney Library, Rockingham Library, Chester Unitarian Church, Brattleboro Jewish Community Center, 2006-2007.

Board of Directors, Greater Falls Chamber of Commerce, 2004-2006

Board Member, Saxtons River Recreation Area, 2003-present.

Founding Board Member, The Compass School, Westminster, Vermont, May 1998-2005.

Character Education Advisory Board member, State of New Hampshire Department of Education, 1999-2001.

Facilitator, Windham Northeast Supervisory Union Superintendent Search, June 1998.

Bellows Falls High School, School Improvement Team and Advisory Board, 1995-1998.

AEE Rocky Mountain Regional Conference Steering Committee, 1992 and 1993.

Other Activities

Nine month round the world trip with my family, August 2006-May 2007.

Three year letterman, Varsity Soccer and Ski Teams, Stanford University.

Peer academic advisor, Stanford University.

Extensive worldwide travel, bicycling, ski mountaineering, and backpacking.