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?